Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

* not a euphamism.

Okay, this made me laugh.

 

[stevevw]

I also have noticed that moral objectivists go for the extreme examples. That's why I like using much more mild examples, such as a child who has stolen a candy bar and what is the morally correct punishment, and all of a sudden I am told, "Ah, well, you see, it's complicated..."

But it shouldn't matter if its an extreme example. If it objective morality can be shown in an extreme example then it has been shown and therefore supported. Thats all that is needed just 1 example and we have proven objective morality. The reason why extreme examples are used is that it cuts to the chase and makes things easy to show that there are objective morals. Just because less extreme examples may be harder to show objective morality doesnt then prove there are no objective morals. Thats a logical fallacy.

I have shown stealing examples before anyway. Punishment has nothing to do with whether stealing is right or wrong. But the fact that you admit that some sort of punishment is required shows you also acknowledge the kid was wrong to steal the candy. That shows you intuitive know its objectively wrong and there is no subjective reason to allow stealing.

I mean if we see a kid stealing candy the shop owner doesn't just go "hey I will let these kids steal candy as that is their subjective moral position so its all OK to do because they are poor and hungry or whatever rationalization you like to make". No they call them out because theres no excuse to steal.

 

[stevevw]

That's another good point.

You might argue that punishing a child is objectively correct. But who decides on the severity of the punishment? That's a subjective view. If a group of men abduct and assault a young girl, is that as bad as a man who has sex with his wife when they are both drunk and she has fallen asleep? If I agree to work for someone for nothing to pay off a debt and the guy passes the debt on to someone else - in effect selling me, is that as bad as the usual concept we have of antebellum slavery in the old south? If you think that caging wild animals is objectively wrong, then what if the cage is a few hundred square kilometres? How small does it need to get before it's objectively wrong?

Is it possible to ask 'to what degree is X wrong?' and still define it as being objectively wrong? Based on one's personal opinion of the severity of the act? Of course not. But I just gave three examples of when we can ask that very question about what some claim are objectively immoral acts.

I don't think you realize that you have just provided support for objective morality. The fact that you are asking about what degree of wrongness or severity we should determine for a moral act implies there is an objective moral standard to measure this against.

Otherwise your whole idea in determining this is meaningless and a waste of time because if morals are subjective then there are no standards to measure morality. Its just different preferences or opinions and nothing to do with moral values. There are no degrees of wrongness or rightness under subjective morality.

So because you are using degrees of wrongness shows lived morality in action. You know that there are degrees of wrongness as it is necessary and cannot be denied in real moral situations. Just like you cannot find ‘truth’ without the moral value of ‘truth’ you cannot have degrees of wrongness without an objective moral standard. That is undenable and stands independent regardless of people subjective moral views.

 

[Bradskii]

It wouldn’t be a dichotomy if we could show that despite those people claiming that they are happy to have abortions it is still wrong. Thats why I say its not just about lived morality but other factors that show its not morally good.

So we can skip the 'lived morality'. That shows us nothing. Because how people live their life in what they believe is a morally acceptable manner differs from person to person. It tells us nothing in itself.

So you need to show that something is wrong using an argument that they'll accept. But what if they don't accept your premises? To use the matter of abortion, you'd perhaps say premise one is that you shouldn't take an innocent person's life. Well, I and very many others would disagree immediately. And would say quite emphatically that it's a good guide for how to live a moral life but isn't applicable in all circumstances. It's relative to the circumstances. But you might press on and say that, based on your first premise, you can't take the life of a baby in the womb. At which point very many people indeed would point out that a zygote (for example) cannot be described as a person, so your second premise is also wrong.

So your conclusion is right for you because you believe that your premises are factual claims. But your conclusion is wrong for me and others because I know they are not.

Now let's not get into an argument about abortion itself. It'll go nowhere. But you need to realise that what you define as undeniable facts about life (which you'll need as premises for your argument) are not held to be such by others (and in the case of abortion, not held by perhaps by a majority of others).

Now your only response to this, as I see it, is to claim divine authority. And state that God has determined that one shouldn't take an innocent person's life. Which obviously cuts no ice with an atheist (or a Jew in this particular case.

So your argument is only applicable to you and others who feel the same way to you. Objective it ain't.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think you realize that you have just provided support for objective morality. The fact that you are asking about what degree of wrongness or severity we should determine for a moral act implies there is an objective moral standard to measure this against.

No. That there are degrees of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' shows that there isn't an objective determination. It's either acceptable or not so acceptable or perhaps a little bit wrong etc depending on the circumstances. And the position we take will be an individual determination of where that point is.

Saying that all moral acts are subjective doesn't mean that there must be an objective morality with which to judge it. I'm saying that there is no objective value therefore all we can do is make a personal opinion on firstly if we consider it to be wrong and secondly how wrong we think it is. Otherwise you need to make statements that something is right or wrong in itself. Such as 'lying is wrong' or 'stealing is wrong', which I reject completely. Acts like that cannot be viewed in isolation. One needs context. One needs to know under what circumstances someone lied or stole.

So all we are left with is a subjective morality.

 

[stevevw]

No. That there are degrees of 'rightness' or 'wrongness' shows that there isn't an objective determination.

But what is the degree of rightness of wrongness being measured against. What is the little bit of wrong being determined by that its only a little bit wrong and not completely wrong. There has to be some measuring stick to determine that level of wrongness.

Its just like what C. S. Lewis said, how can we know that a stick is crooked unless we also know what straight is. So how can we know what being partly good is unless we also know what that partly good is being measured against which would have to be the full degree of wrongness.

How you tell something is good or bad you must have a scoring system. So, when a person says that something is objective good or bad you are saying that someone has either conformed to those sets of rules (good score) or broken those sets of rules (bad score). This is what makes our language about morality coherent, that we have some sort of understanding of what good and bad means attached to a reference point.
How Do Moral Absolutes Prove That God Exists?

No Room for Social Reform and Progress
One of the strongest objections to relativism is the idea that if relativism is true, then there can be no such thing as social reform or moral progress. If each culture’s ethical code is equally good and right, then when a country changes its ethical code from being pro-slavery to being anti-slavery this moral change is merely a change rather an improvement. Moral improvement and progress require that there be some standard toward which a society or an ethical code are approaching; they also entail that the subsequent morality is better than the prior morality, but again this is not something that can be said if relativism is true.
https://press.rebus.community/intro...opinion-on-moral-relativism-and-subjectivism/

In fact come to think of it if there is no objective morlaity then morality doesn't exist at all. So under subjective morality there are no degrees of wrongness because there is no motal wrongness at all in reality.

It's either acceptable or not so acceptable

Being acceptable or not so acceptable is different to degrees of wrongness. Here you are only giving two options its acceptable (right) or unacceptable (wrong). But I am still trying to get my head around degrees of wrongness. I don't think there are degrees of wrongness. Its either right or wrong. Can you give me an example of a degree of wrongness.

or perhaps a little bit wrong etc depending on the circumstances.

That’s what’s called relative morality. So another culture thinks slavery is OK relative to their culture that influences the way they see things. But even that’s still not about right and wrong.

And the position we take will be an individual determination of where that point is.

And that point has to be in relation to something. Otherwise theres no point literally.

Saying that all moral acts are subjective doesn't mean that there must be an objective morality with which to judge it.

Well yes it sort of does because subjective morality is not about determining moral right and wrong is it. Its only about 'likes' and 'dislikes'. You cannot be morally wrong for disliking chocolate. But when people make moral claims they are not just expressing their ('likes' and 'dislikes').

They are expressing the rightness and wrongness about behaviour beyond them and into the world because otherwise they are not really saying much at all about what is truly right and wrong with an opinion and most people like to think they are saying something objectively true about morality.

I'm saying that there is no objective value therefore all we can do is make a personal opinion on firstly if we consider it to be wrong and secondly how wrong we think it is.

But what is the measure against which people determine "how wrong we think it is". People don't act like their moral values are opinions or preferences for chocolate. Imagine saying to someone you are wrong for liking chocolate. It doesnt make much sense.

People like to think they are expressing a truth out into the world, into the streets, offices, companies they occupy that the moral wrong they protest or condemn as wrong is a real wrong in those lived situations outside themselves that apply to others. Thats moving from their morals from within the subject to outside the subject.

Otherwise you need to make statements that something is right or wrong in itself. Such as 'lying is wrong' or 'stealing is wrong', which I reject completely.

Yes thats exactly right as explained above. People are taking their moral views from within and applying them to situations like the situation (act) is wrong in itself.

For example when people are looking for the truth of a matter in a debate it is necessary to value the moral value of 'Truth" and not lie. If you don't then you can never find the truth. So someone that claims subjectively that lying is OK in that sitaution are objectively wrong because logically you cannot find the 'truth' without valuing and upholding the 'truth' like its a value in itself outside the person and not subject to peoples opinions.

You have already done this implicitly by questioning whether I am misrepresenting things when you say I have created a dichotomy. You could not claim that unless we respected " truth' and 'honesty' as valuable in themselves. Otherwise I could just keep making logical fallacies and our debate would become meaningless.

Acts like that cannot be viewed in isolation. One needs context. One needs to know under what circumstances someone lied or stole.

Yet if we see an old lady on the street having her handbag stolen we don't think " oh that robber must be poor and subjectively thinks robbing people is OK to get by so thats OK". No we reel back and are startled and think thats not good. We do this without even knowing the circumstances of the robber because thats irrelevant.

So all we are left with is a subjective morality.

LIke I said that is not objective morlaity but absolute or universal morality which is fixed morality and doesn't change with changing circumstances. Objective morality is not a fixed measure. It simply find the objectively right or wrong thing outside human opinions in each changing circumstance.

moral realism (objective morality) doesn’t necessarily imply moral universalism (absolute morality).
Just because I am a moral realist doesn’t mean it will always be wrong to kill.
Just like in mathematics
View attachment 306926
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

 

[stevevw]

So we can skip the 'lived morality'. That shows us nothing. Because how people live their life in what they believe is a morally acceptable manner differs from person to person. It tells us nothing in itself.

I don’t think you get lived morality. It’s actually about what’s real and not what people think in their heads with views or opinions.

A good example is our debate. You are making claims which I think you believe are true such as the example you just made "So we can skip the 'lived morality'. That shows us nothing". When you question me as to whether I am making “truth" claims you will challenge my claims and even protest that I may be making logical fallacies like a dichotomy or any other misrepresentation. I will do the same if it comes up. Do you agree so far?

So if either of us or anyone else in the world was having a debate seeking the truth, do you think they could do without the moral value of 'Truth' and ‘Honesty’ and still have a meaningful debate seeking the 'truth'. When you question me you are testing whether I am not misrepresentation what you say or lying and this is based on us valuing 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as the measurement. You could not challenge me on anything if you did not uphold 'Truth' and 'Honesty'.

So tell me how is 'Truth' and 'Honesty' in our debate not independently valuable despite anyone’s subjective moral views that they are not valuable. This is objective morality because these morals stand outside human opinions for our debate. Otherwise I could just lie and misrepresent your arguments. You could do the same. But we both hold 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as necessary and undeniable regardless of personal opinions.

Tell me how this is not the case. All you have to do is come up with a way that we or anyone for that matter can have a debate seeking the truth by making 'Truth' and ‘Honesty’ subjective, that is unnecessary for a debate seeking the truth.

I can confidently say that 'Truth' and 'Honesty' are indispensible in debates/discussions seking the truth regardless of time, location, personal opinion, preferences, views or any subjective position because it is impossible to have a debate seeking the truth without the 'Truth' for which ' Honesty' is a part of.

So its self-evident by logic that these are objective morals.

 

[stevevw]

Double post

 

[o_mlly]

Ah, and here we go. Always with the extreme examples, just as I said in post 850. Funny, you'd think that objective morality would apply to ALL moral issues, not just the extreme ones.

? The objective immorality of rape has been the act under examination for the past ~ 400 posts. And, I might add, not yet answered perhaps until now.

Am I correct to infer from this post that you now agree that rape is objectively an immoral act?

 

[o_mlly]

Unless I'm wrong (and I actually hope that I am), you implied in an earllier post that a man may have some 'rights' when it comes to the marital bed. So let's use that ...

...the husband who believes he has the right to have sex with his wife whenever he wants ...

Let's stick with determining the objective morality in act of rape for now. We might have a breakthrough (See post #889). The topic of marital rights and obligations would be an interesting new thread.

Do you think that you'd get unanimous agreement as to the degree of immorality ...

The morality of a human act is binary; it is either moral or immoral. Within each category some acts may be more egregious or commendable than others.

 

[partinobodycular]

I can confidently say that 'Truth' and 'Honesty' are indispensible in debates/discussions seking the truth regardless of time, location, personal opinion, preferences, views or any subjective position because it is impossible to have a debate seeking the truth without the 'Truth' for which ' Honesty' is a part of.

If "Truth" and "Honesty" are indispensable to any discussion seeking the truth, then that would mean that in order to have a discussion about the truth one must first have the truth, and know that they have the truth. Otherwise they're likely to have neither truth nor honesty.

Fortunately, neither truth nor honesty are necessary to any discussion, be it about truth or anything else. All that one needs in any discussion is an opinion. The truth of that opinion is what the discussion is attempting to ascertain, but it's not a prerequisite. Neither is honesty. The validity of any argument rests solely on its merits, which may or may not be true, or honestly represented.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's stick with determining the objective morality in act of rape for now. We might have a breakthrough (See post #889). The topic of marital rights and obligations would be an interesting new thread.

The morality of a human act is binary; it is either moral or immoral. Within each category some acts may be more egregious or commendable than others.

Marital rights are part of this dicussion. The definition of rape is quite clear. That there are different degress of seriousness is undeniable (sleeping wife v gang rape). As you put it, 'some acts may be more egregious or commendable than others'. Which leads to different people having different views on any given act. So:

'Meh. Doesn't worry me. But I guess you could say it might be wrong in some situations'.
'That's a despicable act and should be punished to the maximum the law allows'.

Two views on the same act. And one person could take either view depending on the act. Are you really suggesting that the act is objectively wrong? Because we can add another view:

'Actually, although it could be wrong in some circumstances, I think it's generally OK most of the time'.

If that was your position, and you hold morality to be binary, are you saying it is now objectively good?

 

[Bradskii]

But what is the degree of rightness of wrongness being measured against. What is the little bit of wrong being determined by that its only a little bit wrong and not completely wrong. There has to be some measuring stick to determine that level of wrongness.

There is no objective measure. All you need are two examples and you make a determination as to which is the better (or worst). Which leads to the second point...

Being acceptable or not so acceptable is different to degrees of wrongness. Here you are only giving two options its acceptable (right) or unacceptable (wrong). But I am still trying to get my head around degrees of wrongness. I don't think there are degrees of wrongness. Its either right or wrong. Can you give me an example of a degree of wrongness.

We've already done this. A girl abducted and gang raped versus a man who has sex with his sleeping wife. As you might have just read 'some acts may be more egregious or commendable than others'. So please don't tell me they are morally equivalent.

Which leads to the third point. You have a habit of ignoring questions (and ignoring answers as well), so I'm going to have to repeat one. How do you tell that stealing is wrong without any context? The original question didn't mention context but it's impossible to answer without it. Unless you take a deontological view that stealing is wrong in itself. In which case there's not going to be much else to discuss. Because then it becomes 'it's wrong because I say so'. Or more likely, 'it's wrong because God says so'.

The argument then takes a step back to 'does God exist?' If He does then objective morality exists. So just state that and be done. We've all been wasting our time.

Oh, and a third point. I think it was asked in the post to which I'm responding. As to how we feel that our standard of morality is always improving. And it was answered by me about 5 pages back (see what I said about ignoring answers as well?). My response was that we change to suit our environment. So any changes appear to be better (obviously). So I said: 'I think morality might be like that. It's always a good fit for the environment in which we find ourselves, so we'll always consider it to be 'better' than it was.'

 

[Kylie]

But it shouldn't matter if its an extreme example. If it objective morality can be shown in an extreme example then it has been shown and therefore supported. Thats all that is needed just 1 example and we have proven objective morality. The reason why extreme examples are used is that it cuts to the chase and makes things easy to show that there are objective morals. Just because less extreme examples may be harder to show objective morality doesnt then prove there are no objective morals. Thats a logical fallacy.

However, the idea that it is harder to show using mild examples is exactly what we'd expect to see if morality was subjective. I don't see why it would be harder like this if it were objective.

I have shown stealing examples before anyway. Punishment has nothing to do with whether stealing is right or wrong. But the fact that you admit that some sort of punishment is required shows you also acknowledge the kid was wrong to steal the candy. That shows you intuitive know its objectively wrong and there is no subjective reason to allow stealing.

I mean if we see a kid stealing candy the shop owner doesn't just go "hey I will let these kids steal candy as that is their subjective moral position so its all OK to do because they are poor and hungry or whatever rationalization you like to make". No they call them out because theres no excuse to steal.

Of course, my explanation serves just as well. Stealing is something that will harm our society, hence we have developed a subjective system of morality that says that stealing is wrong. It's ion no way inconsistent with what I said.

 

[Kylie]

? The objective immorality of rape has been the act under examination for the past ~ 400 posts. And, I might add, not yet answered perhaps until now.

Am I correct to infer from this post that you now agree that rape is objectively an immoral act?

I think my position on whether morality is objective or subjective has been made abundantly clear by now. I don't see the need to state my position again.

 

[Kylie]

Let's stick with determining the objective morality in act of rape for now. We might have a breakthrough (See post #889). The topic of marital rights and obligations would be an interesting new thread.

Logical fallacy. You are assuming that the morality is objective and are now trying to prove it. That's not the way to find out the truth.

The morality of a human act is binary; it is either moral or immoral. Within each category some acts may be more egregious or commendable than others.

This doesn't make sense. It's like saying that in binary, each number is a 0 or a 1, but some 1s are more 1 than other 1s.

 

[stevevw]

If "Truth" and "Honesty" are indispensable to any discussion seeking the truth, then that would mean that in order to have a discussion about the truth one must first have the truth, and know that they have the truth. Otherwise they're likely to have neither truth nor honesty.
Fortunately, neither truth nor honesty are necessary to any discussion, be it about truth or anything else. All that one needs in any discussion is an opinion. The truth of that opinion is what the discussion is attempting to ascertain, but it's not a prerequisite. Neither is honesty. The validity of any argument rests solely on its merits, which may or may not be true, or honestly represented.

Not really because people are seeking the truth. Thats really the basis for just about every human interaction but especially in philosophical debates. Look at PLato in his logical debate style or posing propositions and arguing for the truth. They don't know the truth and thats why questions are asked and propositions are made and argued. But even if they know the truth the other person wants to check that this is the case.

People will negociate, question each others claims, test them for logical fallacies to see if they are factual/truth. All that cannot be done if they both don't agree implicitly that they uphold and abide by 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as rules and guides to their debate.

Otherwise the debate/discussion cannot go ahead as being meaninful and coherent because as you say all they would have is opinions and claims which may or may not be the truth. But how do they test if its the 'truth' if the 'truth'is not a necessary value in their debate. How do you have a chance at determining the 'Truth'if you both don't agree to be honest in that debate.

Like our debate, as soon as you choose to reply to my post with an arguement for subjective morality and I decide to reply you assume that certain moral duties must be present in our debate. You assume that I ought to not misrepresent your argument and lie and refute them or use logical fallacies. You are prescribing moral duties such as these and believe they should be kept and abided by.

But thats the point. Why should I or anyone abide by those moral duties if morality is subjective because that is only an opinion or view. So in order for us to have a coherent debate that can find the truth we both have to treat 'Honesty' and the truth' as objective, beyond anyones subjective opinions otherwise we can have no debate seeking the truth of a matter.

But people do have debates seeking a matter all the time which shows in reality people implicitly apply these morals like they are necessary and objective.

 

[stevevw]

However, the idea that it is harder to show using mild examples is exactly what we'd expect to see if morality was subjective. I don't see why it would be harder like this if it were objective.

This is a logical fallacy. If you apply this to science it would be because there are scientific facts that are hard to show it must be that there are no scientific facts to be found.

You missed the point in the first place. Because we can show objective morality exists with an extreme example we have already done the job or proving objective morality so any mild example that is harder to show doesn’t matter anymore because the case has already been proven and doesn't counter that.

Just because there may be some examples that are harder to explain or prove at the moment like in science doesn't mean that there are only subjective morals and no objective ones. That’s a logical fallacy. It may take more time and investigating to prove those mild examples or they may never be proven but that doesn't follow that there are no objective morals.

Of course, my explanation serves just as well. Stealing is something that will harm our society, hence we have developed a subjective system of morality that says that stealing is wrong. It's ion no way inconsistent with what I said.

BUt as I was trying to explain earlier that your explanation is only a desription of morality and doesnt explain why something is wrong. So we could ask why is is good to that we don't harm society. There is no moral basis for your explanation to measure what is morally right or wrong.

 

[Kylie]

This is a logical fallacy. If you apply this to science it would be because there are scientific facts that are hard to show it must be that there are no scientific facts to be found.

You missed the point in the first place. Because we can show objective morality exists with an extreme example we have already done the job or proving objective morality so any mild example that is harder to show doesn’t matter anymore because the case has already been proven and doesn't counter that.

Just because there may be some examples that are harder to explain or prove at the moment like in science doesn't mean that there are only subjective morals and no objective ones. That’s a logical fallacy. It may take more time and investigating to prove those mild examples or they may never be proven but that doesn't follow that there are no objective morals.

Irrelevant.

A more accurate analogy would be to say that since the scientific method can show the facts that everyone agrees on are objectively true, it can also show that other things are objectively true that not all people agree on. Some examples of this actually happening are black holes and tectonic drift.

BUt as I was trying to explain earlier that your explanation is only a desription of morality and doesnt explain why something is wrong. So we could ask why is is good to that we don't harm society. There is no moral basis for your explanation to measure what is morally right or wrong.

Again, you are assuming that there is an objective WHY. There is not.

As for why it is good that we don't harm society, the simple fact is that the universe really doesn't care. Humanity will be around for the merest blink of the history of the universe. The only ones who actually care about humanity are us, and that makes it a subjective issue.

 

[Bradskii]

As for why it is good that we don't harm society, the simple fact is that the universe really doesn't care. Humanity will be around for the merest blink of the history of the universe. The only ones who actually care about humanity are us, and that makes it a subjective issue.

No comment. It was just worth repeating.