Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

Ok so is what you just said an objective truth or just your opinion. How do you tell that my only support for objective morlaity is my faith.

I can read you posts.

And again, for me ”objective/subjective” is meaningless terms.

 

[stevevw]

I can read you posts.

This means nothing, Its just your perception of things which says nothing about any truth of the matter.

And again, for me ”objective/subjective” is meaningless terms.

Yes your expressing an opinion. It says nothing about how things really are. Whether there is objective morality.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are a number of serious objections to subjectivism. Here are just four:
1. If subjectivism is true, then the opinions of those in power are more easily forced upon others,

I hate to break this to you, but for all of human history the opinions of those in power have been forced upon others. If this is impossible when morality is objective, then this implies morality is not objective. Slaves did not have any recourse to object to their treatment. Laws are created by the people in power.

2. If subjectivism is true, then there is no possibility of anybody being wrong; there will only be differences of opinion and preference.

This is not a problem, this is a restatement of the situation.

3.4. If subjectivism is true and ethical claims express nothing more than our own attitudes about a particular act or behavior, then genuine ethical disagreement would be impossible. [and]

neither would any genuine ethical agreement be possible.

I don't even understand this. If ethical claims are opinions, then people can have different opinions or the same opinion. There can be disagreement or agreement. People do in fact have different opinions on moral issues.

On the other hand, if morality is objective, then disagreements would cease if one side could demonstrate the objective fact of the matter. It seems far more likely that ethical disagreements would be impossible if objective morality were the case. Of course, this thread has been replete with the inability to demonstrate any moral facts. This suggests to me that morality is subjective. Or at best, as on page 1 of this thread, if it's objective, knowledge of it is inaccessible to human beings.

 

[VirOptimus]

This means nothing, Its just your perception of things which says nothing about any truth of the matter.

Yes your expressing an opinion. It says nothing about how things really are. Whether there is objective morality.

Heh, your posts tell us much, more than you think. But not anything insighful about the subject unfortunatley.

 

[Moral Orel]

But how do you make others follow your preferences.

How? I imagine if I witnessed a rape occurring I would make the rapists "follow my preferences" to not rape the same way the cops would.

Whta basis can you force your preferences on others if preferences are subjective and have no truth beyond you for others.

What basis? What do I need a "basis" for? I prefer X, I cause X. I prefer not X, I prevent X. That's all that's necessary.

 

[Ken-1122]

They are both morally right things to do. We intuitively know that. But you have to state what the situation is to which the moral applies to determine their rightness or wrongness

To do that would require human thought and input; you were very clear objective morality has to be beyond human thoughts and input. Again; if humans can’t be involved in deciding, how do you tell which is moral; justice or forgiveness?

Actually as with Maths morality is discovered not created by humans.

Math (like morality) does not have an actual existence, it only exists in the thoughts of mankind.

I think animals are not moral creatures. They have no conscience. They just live socially and by instinct.

Anything objective will have the same effect on animals as it has on humans. The tree in my front lawn effects animals as much as it effects me.

By our intuition that we know moral truths and by reasoning that the moral is the best option in how to act in that situation.

Human intuition is based on human thoughts. You said objective morality is not based on human thoughts.

You are describing subjective morality and actually making an arguement against it and for there being objective morals. As you said we have to have an independnt standard of what is moral outside people.

No, my point is that there is no independent standard of what is moral.

We can use thought to determine that something is objective outside humans just like we can use thought to determine the objective fact outside human opinion that the earth is roundand not flat.

Human thought does not determine the shape of the Earth, it recognizes the shape of the earth. If human thought does not determine morality, what does?

So we can use the same method except the moral facts are not phyical. They are like Math facts (abstract). But we can use rationality and logic to find these moral facts just like Maths.

Math is an agreed upon system humans invented to calculate numbers. Morality is not an agreed upon system.

 

[CatsRule2020]

The secularist posters in this thread keep stating "morality is not objective" . Stevevw is saying that there are moral actions (and inactions), that we all experience in our lives, that affect our conscience.
Please stop using 'morality in general' as this is not the subject.

Objective morality or is a metaphysical reality that Christians affirm, and secularists point to but only wish they could affirm.

 

[Ken-1122]

The secularist posters in this thread keep stating "morality is not objective" . Stevevw is saying that there are moral actions (and inactions), that we all experience in our lives, that affect our conscience.

If that were all he were saying, nobody would argue with him. Unfortunately he has been saying morality is objective as well; that is where the disagreement has been coming from.

Please stop using 'morality in general' as this is not the subject.

The title of this thread is “is there objective morality”. That is what we are addressing.

Objective morality or is a metaphysical reality that Christians affirm,

Christians like Stevew claim it is more than philosophy, but an objective reality.

and secularists point to but only wish they could affirm.

If a secularist believed morality were subjective, there is nothing preventing him from affirming it (other than evidence the same problem Christians seem to have)[/QUOTE]

 

[Kylie]

A rape-murder case would be extreme. Rape happens all too frequently to be called extreme. The point is that morality is not subjective as you apparently claim. All that is needed to disprove such a claim is one case of a human act that is objectively bad. Is rape an objectively disordered act or not?

As to other disordered acts, I recall a depraved "good rape" claim by a poster in this thread who suggested that the victim (which patently admits the act is rape) just lay back and try to enjoy the rape and then, if she did, then it was a "good rape". So, I'm sure you could come up with a "good abortion" or a "good 'mercy' killing".

You miss my point. Nearly everyone agrees that rape is morally wrong, so by using that as your example you are trying to stack the deck in your favour. If morality truly is objective as you claim, you should be able to do it with EVERY moral issue, so why do you keep going to the ones that most people already agree on?

The difference in degrees of moral and immoral acts would be an interesting but different thread.

All that is needed to answer this thread's question: "Is morality objective?" is in this thread. I suspect you keep pushing your red herring (but you have to measure the number and size of the nipples first!) to avoid affirming what has been clearly demonstrated -- all morality is not subjective. Since all morality is not subjective, we can proceed to test each claim of subjectivity in particular human acts.

Emphasis by me.

There you go again -- asserting w/o an argument. The deflection is all yours. Perhaps this is just a game for you but not for me.

 

[Ken-1122]

All that is needed to answer this thread's question: "Is morality objective?" is in this thread. I suspect you keep pushing your red herring (but you have to measure the number and size of the nipples first!) to avoid affirming what has been clearly demonstrated -- all morality is not subjective. Since all morality is not subjective, we can proceed to test each claim of subjectivity in particular human acts.

Can you give an example of a moral situation that is not subjective?

 

[Kylie]

Can you give an example of a moral situation that is not subjective?

I wager that the answer provided is rape, or murder, or something along those lines. As I've said many times, the extreme examples that pretty much everyone agrees on are always trotted out to "prove" moral objectivity.

 

[stevevw]

How? I imagine if I witnessed a rape occurring I would make the rapists "follow my preferences" to not rape the same way the cops would.

But the cops have that authority which shows the law doesnt care about subjective moral views and classes rape as objectively wrong and theres not two ways about it. So your actually acknowledging that you also see rape as objectively wrong and that anyone with a subjective moral view that thinks rape is OK is objectively wrong. In other words there is only one way to behave and thats "To not rape".

But lets make the moral wrong less extreme. Say someone finds a wallet full of money and they decide to keep the money and not hand it in to the police which is stealing. So how can you say that the person is morally wrong when his subjective view may be that there is nothing wrong. His view is "Finders keepers losers weepers". Don't you both have your own moral view and no one is morally wrong in any objective way.

What basis? What do I need a "basis" for? I prefer X, I cause X. I prefer not X, I prevent X. That's all that's necessary.

There is no basis because its all about your (preferences, likes & dislikes and opinions) and this says nothing about whether the moral is wrong outside your (preferences, likes & dislikes and opinions). So there is no basis outside you or any human that can confirm what you say is the truth or a fact.

We can turn it around to show how silly it is when you use preferences to measure morality. You cannot say to someone because I prefer to not have peas therefore I will stop you from having peas because its morally wrong.

 

[stevevw]

I wager that the answer provided is rape, or murder, or something along those lines. As I've said many times, the extreme examples that pretty much everyone agrees on are always trotted out to "prove" moral objectivity.

but as I have also mentioned and which you seem to agree with, is that it doesnt matter if we use an extreme example of objective morality because if it shows objective morality then the task has been achieved. Why go to the hassle of using examples that may be harder to show or take more time and effort when a clear example will do.

 

[o_mlly]

You miss my point. Nearly everyone agrees that rape is morally wrong, so by using that as your example you are trying to stack the deck in your favour. If morality truly is objective as you claim, you should be able to do it with EVERY moral issue, so why do you keep going to the ones that most people already agree on?

"Stacks the deck", "manipulative", "deceitful", "ridiculous"? So it goes.


Instead of the ad hominems just admit that all morality is not subjective as you claimed. And, yes I do claim that every human act in the concrete is objectively moral or immoral. But to go there we first have to disabuse those who mistakenly claim that all morality is subjective. Are you yet disabused?

I wager that the answer provided is rape, or murder, or something along those lines. As I've said many times, the extreme examples that pretty much everyone agrees on are always trotted out to "prove" moral objectivity.

Strawman fallacy. Please pay attention. I did not claim that because rape is objectively immoral that all morality is objective. I do claim, as a point of logic, that it does prove that all morality is not subjective as apparently you and others claim.

 

[stevevw]

To do that would require human thought and input; you were very clear objective morality has to be beyond human thoughts and input. Again; if humans can’t be involved in deciding, how do you tell which is moral; justice or forgiveness?

You have misunderstood this. We cannot involve human subjective thinking if morals are objective but that doesnt mean humans cannot use rationality and logic to work out the facts. It doesnt mean totally excluding humans. Just the thinking that expresses the humans views and opinions.

But humans can work out if there are facts/truths in the world. They can work out that 2 + 2 = 4 and not five. They can work a truth like rape is wrong not because you or I think its wrong but because it is wrong in itself.

Math (like morality) does not have an actual existence, it only exists in the thoughts of mankind.

And like morality is is an abstract thing but can have truth value like 2 + 2 = 4 and not five. If someone subjective thought that the answer was 5 or 6 we can say it is a fact you are wrong by showing them the correct answer. Yet there is no physical aspect of this truth just like moral truths.

Anything objective will have the same effect on animals as it has on humans. The tree in my front lawn effects animals as much as it effects me.

As I mentioned this is a different kind of objective to morality. Morality is not physical. It may have some physical effects but morals themselves are not physical. So like maths moral truths will be in the way humans make morals truth like they make maths truths. IE you cannot find truth without truth. There is nothing physical here but its still a fact.

Human intuition is based on human thoughts. You said objective morality is not based on human thoughts.

No I said objective morality is measured outside humans. Humans can still do the measuring but it cannot be their personal views which are more about the person that the fact of the matter. Subjective morality tells us about what the person likes and objective morality tells us what things are really like outside the person.

No, my point is that there is no independent standard of what is moral.

Then how can you say to he is morally wrong for sleeping with your wife if there is no independent standard to measure if hes wrong or not.

Human thought does not determine the shape of the Earth, it recognizes the shape of the earth.

Just like humans recognise objective morals.

If human thought does not determine morality, what does?

Human rational thinking determines moral objectives. But human subjective thinking is a different kind of thinking as its only about the humans psychological state, their feelings, opinions and perceptions of the world.

Math is an agreed upon system humans invented to calculate numbers. Morality is not an agreed upon system.

Math was not agreed upon. It is a measurement of what is. Math is dicovered not created by humans. 2 + 2 = 4 will still be true even if there were no humans.

Moral facts and duties are deciphered through rationality and reasoning.
Much like through math or philosophical positions but not through scientific empirical investigations.
If we see someone harming someone else, we cannot know how we ought to act. We have to reason that we ought to act a certain way. Morality is deciphered through rationality.
Humans have only discovered the laws of logic and math. We did not create them. 2+2=4 is still true even if no human existed to write it down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0

 

[stevevw]

Heh, your posts tell us much, more than you think. But not anything insighful about the subject unfortunatley.

I find that a fairly strong personal opinion and yet it still doesnt mean that you are speaking any truth. The ironic thing is you would have to engage for us to know what you mean but you seem to never expand on anything. It would be nice to debate the subjective with you. Tell me what you see in my posts, enlighten me please I am not afraid to know.

 

[Moral Orel]

But the cops have that authority which shows the law doesnt care about subjective moral views and classes rape as objectively wrong and theres not two ways about it.

No, the law classifies rape as a punishable act. Point is, I don't need someone to tell me that I have the authority to stop a rape, I can still do stop the rape without it.

So your actually acknowledging that you also see rape as objectively wrong and that anyone with a subjective moral view that thinks rape is OK is objectively wrong. In other words there is only one way to behave and thats "To not rape".

You made all this up wholecloth. I didn't like that a rape was occurring, so I stopped the rape from occurring. That's it. Much in the same way I don't like Brussel sprouts, so I stop them from entering my mouth. Same thing.

But lets make the moral wrong less extreme. Say someone finds a wallet full of money and they decide to keep the money and not hand it in to the police which is stealing. So how can you say that the person is morally wrong when his subjective view may be that there is nothing wrong.

I don't say that anything is "morally wrong".

His view is "Finders keepers losers weepers". Don't you both have your own moral view and no one is morally wrong in any objective way.

Correct, no one is "morally wrong in any objective way". So what?

There is no basis because its all about your (preferences, likes & dislikes and opinions) and this says nothing about whether the moral is wrong outside your (preferences, likes & dislikes and opinions). So there is no basis outside you or any human that can confirm what you say is the truth or a fact.

Right, there is no basis because we aren't talking about true facts, we're talking about likes, dislikes and preferences. The question I asked was, "So what?". So, so what if there's no basis? What do I need a basis for?

We can turn it around to show how silly it is when you use preferences to measure morality. You cannot say to someone because I prefer to not have peas therefore I will stop you from having peas because its morally wrong.

I have to reiterate again and again, I do not say anything is "morally wrong" so another hypothetical goes nowhere.

 

[stevevw]

No, the law classifies rape as a punishable act. Point is, I don't need someone to tell me that I have the authority to stop a rape, I can still do stop the rape without it.

But arnt you forcing your morals onto the rapist.

You made all this up wholecloth. I didn't like that a rape was occurring, so I stopped the rape from occurring. That's it. Much in the same way I don't like Brussel sprouts, so I stop them from entering my mouth. Same thing.

No what your doing is your stopping someone else who may like brussell sprouts from eating them. Lets exchange rape for brussel sprounts.

So you prefer people not to rape (you don't prefer brussel sprouts). When you see someone committing the act of eating brussell sprouts you will stop them. I didnt like that a a person was eating brussell sprouts, so I stop them from entering their mouth.

I don't say that anything is "morally wrong".

So you can't say to to someone that stealing the money is morally wrong but you can stop a rapist who is doing something morally wrong.

Correct, no one is "morally wrong in any objective way". So what?

Well them how can you stop someone from raping if they are not doing anything morally wrong in any objective way. Arent you imposing your subjective morals onto them and forcing them to live by your morals when you do that.

Right, there is no basis because we aren't talking about true facts, we're talking about likes, dislikes and preferences. The question I asked was, "So what?". So, so what if there's no basis? What do I need a basis for?

Because reality shows that people do act and react like there is a morally right way and morally wrong way to behave for themselves and others. It matters to them enough to want to stop people raping. It matters enough that they condemn certain immoral acts like they are wrong outside themselves and are a truth that applies to the world (everyone).

I have to reiterate again and again, I do not say anything is "morally wrong" so another hypothetical goes nowhere.

So just to clarify your saying things like rape, stealing, killing, child abuse, domestic violence is not really morally wrong in any real sense of the word.

 

[stevevw]

The secularist posters in this thread keep stating "morality is not objective" . Stevevw is saying that there are moral actions (and inactions), that we all experience in our lives, that affect our conscience.
Please stop using 'morality in general' as this is not the subject.

Objective morality or is a metaphysical reality that Christians affirm, and secularists point to but only wish they could affirm.

man, how is it you can say it so well and easily like that. I wish I could do that. I think when you said
"secularists point to but only wish they could affirm" sums it up precisely. Unless you have no conscience people intuitive know moral truths. They cannot help but know and act or avoid acting them out.

 

[Ken-1122]

I wager that the answer provided is rape, or murder, or something along those lines. As I've said many times, the extreme examples that pretty much everyone agrees on are always trotted out to "prove" moral objectivity.

And if I disagree with him even on the extreme issues? Suppose I considered rape and murder to be as much aof a non moral issue as the choice between vanilla vs chocolate Ice cream? What objective evidence will he use to prove me wrong?