Is there Objective Morality?

[essentialsaltes]

Ye heres the strange thing. Most the the experts, the ones who should know the most about morality seem to support objective morality being something real.

Objective things aren't up for a vote.

And heres the even more strange thing. Most of those who deny objective morality still don't think the supporters of objective morality are delussional in believing there are objective morals.

Au contraire, mon frère. You are mistaken that morality is objective. I have in this thread likened this error to a delusion. I can't speak for 'Most of those who deny objective morality', but for all of us who are sincere, we believe our opponents to be in error, guilty of a category error of mistaking moral opinions for moral facts.

 

[Bradskii]

You are missing the definition of objective. Notice the word judgment. You can make an objective judgment, IOW decide something.

1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

You can make a personal decision as to whether to accept or reject evidence presented which will allow you to make a judgement: 'X is false'. That decision cannot be objective because it is your personal opinion (whether you are right or not is irrelevant). It is your personal interpretation of the evidence. Someone else may come to another opinion: 'X is true'.

X may be objectively true or false, but both judgements are subjective.

 

[stevevw]

Objective things aren't up for a vote.

But they are not voting like some political preference. They are choosing based on their expertise and knowledge of the topic. So its not like they don't understand the issue. And yet these experts choose moral realism (objective morality). So it has expert backing.

Au contraire, mon frère. You are mistaken that morality is objective. I have in this thread likened this error to a delusion. I can't speak for 'Most of those who deny objective morality', but for all of us who are sincere, we believe our opponents to be in error, guilty of a category error of mistaking moral opinions for moral facts.

And yet as I explained the "Experts" not any unqualified personal opinion says that those who support objective morality are not in error. So who should we have more confidence in believing knows what they are talking about an individual without any expertise who is expressing a personal opinion or experts who have spent years studying the topic.

And not just any experts by the way. These experts actaully disagree that there is objective morality but they still think those who do support objective morality are not delusional or in error but make sense and have a good case.

The 2009 PhilPapers survey asked just under a thousand philosophers and philosophy graduate students about moral realism, and discovered that 56.4% were moral realists, 27.7% weren’t, and 15.9% held some other position.

For every philosopher who thinks there aren’t any objective moral facts, two philosophers think there are.

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.

If the question was not “is moral realism true” but “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, I suspect the percentage would jump from 56.4% to somewhere in the high nineties. The moral skeptic will certainly be able to find philosophers who agree with him that there aren’t any objective moral facts. However, he won’t be able to find many philosophers who agree with him that moral realists are all horribly confused. He might not be able to find any.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

 

[Bradskii]

I have answered it several times but it seems to go over your head. Its self evident because its real and thats what makes it a truth beyond humans and gives it grounding.

It's self evident? No, it's not. It's self evident because it's real? I have no idea what that means. It's a truth? Something is true because it's true? What?

All you are arguing is that some moral acts must be absolutely good or bad simply because you can't see it any other way. A question: 'How do you know X is wrong?' is simply answered: 'Because I know. It's self evident. It's self evident because it's real. It's wrong because it's the truth'.

This is all completely and utterly meaningless.

 

[partinobodycular]

I have answered it several times but it seems to go over your head. Its self evident because its real and thats what makes it a truth beyond humans and gives it grounding. To say that we need water to live is self evdient and is grounding in the fact that without water we die.

So your argument for objective morality boils down to a convoluted form of the ever popular argument... it's obvious.

That's all you have. You have nothing else to offer?

 

[Belk]

I have answered it several times but it seems to go over your head. Its self evident because its real and thats what makes it a truth beyond humans and gives it grounding. To say that we need water to live is self evdient and is grounding in the fact that without water we die.

That is not what self evident means.

self-evident
adjective
evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic.

So it is with abstract ideas like moral values.

So moral values are both abstract and objective?

The "Truth" is like water for humans engaging in finding the truth of a matter. Humans need to find the truth of a matter to be humans. Its just a moral realism. Its the fact that "Truth" is an indepedent moral standard that we appeal to like a law and use like a law that makes its a law.

Its in the way that "Truth" is made into an objective moral thus giving it grounding outside humans. Its like Humans become the crown witnesses for objective morality. Then humans cannot through their subjective views deminish the "Truth" otherwise they cannot partake in that noraml human activity without ang meaning and coherence.

Very poetic but not making a good case.

 

[partinobodycular]

I have answered it several times but it seems to go over your head. Its self evident because its real and thats what makes it a truth beyond humans and gives it grounding. To say that we need water to live is self evdient and is grounding in the fact that without water we die.

Would you agree that if the goal is to find the "truth", then no matter how "truthful and honest" the participants in a debate are, if either of them is steadfastly irrational, such that they're unwilling to listen to reason, then the debate is doomed to fail?

 

[VirOptimus]

There are several questions that need to be answered if one thinks morality is objective.

What is morals made of? How can we know them? How did this authority come to be? Who has the authority to decide whats correct or not?

And not least, why would it matter?

Every argument for objective morals seem to always end up with "...because god(s)" which is a religious argument, not a philosophical one.

 

[stevevw]

So your argument for objective morality boils down to a convoluted form of the ever popular argument... it's obvious.

That's all you have. You have nothing else to offer?

No and you know thats not the case as I have given you my arguement several times.

 

[VirOptimus]

No and you know thats not the case as I have given you my arguement several times.

They are severly lacking.

 

[stevevw]

There are several questions that need to be answered if one thinks morality is objective.

What is morals made of? How can we know them? How did this authority come to be? Who has the authority to decide whats correct or not?

Before these can be answered a counter question needs to be asked. Can truths and/or facts be supported besides the scientific method.

And not least, why would it matter?

I can answer this and it gives a hint to the fist question. Moral truths/facts matter because we make them matter.

Every argument for objective morals seem to always end up with "...because god(s)" which is a religious argument, not a philosophical one.

Though I would like to debate that topic it is really irrelevant to this thread "Ïs there Objective morality". Saying "there is Objective morality" because of God offers no arguement. I am fully aware of that.

So therefore an arguement has to be made. I take the position of a moral realist which as I have explained can be summed up below

Moral realism (also ethical realism or moral Platonism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

 

[Bradskii]

No and you know thats not the case as I have given you my arguement several times.

It's self evident. It's real. It's the truth. Apart from 'other people believe it's objective as well', that's all we've had.

And your 'argument' in the post above is nothing more than the definition of objective morality.

 

[VirOptimus]

Before these can be answered a counter question needs to be asked. Can truths and/or facts be supported besides the scientific method.

The scientific method is a way to describe physical reality, nothing more nothing less.

I can answer this and it gives a hint to the fist question. Moral truths/facts matter because we make them matter.

Who are "we"? How do "we" make them matter?

Though I would like to debate that topic it is really irrelevant to this thread "Ïs there Objective morality". Saying "there is Objective morality" because of God offers no arguement. I am fully aware of that.

So therefore an arguement has to be made. I take the position of a moral realist which as I have explained can be summed up below

Moral realism (also ethical realism or moral Platonism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

This is irrelevant, answer my questions.

 

[stevevw]

That is not what self evident means.

self-evident
adjective
evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic.

Yes we intuitively know some things are objectively wrong or right.

So moral values are both abstract and objective?

yes I believe so. Because no one can explain moral objectives like we do in science so moral truths/facts seem more supported along the lines of how abstracts can be facts or truths or real if you may. Like Math, experiences of colour, music, arguing propositions about moral values rationally and logically to support them as truths and something that is real that matters.

How people act like morals are truth statements and expressions beyond our heads. Like I say what better evidence do you need then the very people who claim morals are subjective act like their objective.

Very poetic but not making a good case.

But why. Do you think we could have our debate without "Truth" and "Honesty" being necessary morals for our debate.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes we intuitively know some things are objectively wrong or right.

No we dont.

yes I believe so. Because no one can explain moral objectives like we do in science so moral truths/facts seem more supported along the lines of how abstracts can be facts or truths or real if you may. Like Math, experiences of colour, music, arguing propositions about moral values rationally and logically to support them as truths and something that is real, that matters and that act like morals are truth statements and expressions beyond our heads.
But why. Do you think we could have our debate without "Truth" and "Honesty" being necessary morals for our debate.

This is just word salad.

 

[stevevw]

The scientific method is a way to describe physical reality, nothing more nothing less.

OK so do you think we can support truths, facts, objectives outside the physical world.

Who are "we"? How do "we" make them matter?

"We" can only mean Humans.

This is irrelevant, answer my questions.

Its because it "matters" that makes humans want to sort the matter out. It seems to be fundelmental knowledge in human and we interactly react to moral situations like there is something wrong and that justice needs to be done.

Therefore we can try to discover if there is a better/best way to act in that situation through reasoning things out.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK so do you think we can support truths, facts, objectives outside the physical world.

If you mean metaphyisics, then no.

"We" can only mean Humans.

Well, I'm human and I disagree, so which humans? How did you get together and decide this?

Its because it "matters" that makes humans want to sort the matter out. It seems to be fundelmental knowledge in human and we interactly react to moral situations like there is something wrong and that justice needs to be done.

Therefore we can try to discover if there is a better/best way to act in that situation through reasoning things out.

What is "justice"? Who defines it?

 

[stevevw]

No we dont.

So we have both given our opinions, lets see whose opinion may be more supported by independent evidence.

Indeed, relying on your intuition generally has a bad reputation, especially in the Western part of the world where analytic thinking has been steadily promoted over the past decades. Gradually, many have come to think that humans have progressed from relying on primitive, magical and religious thinking to analytic and scientific thinking. As a result, they view emotions and intuition as fallible, even whimsical, tools.

However, this attitude is based on a myth of cognitive progress. Emotions are actually not dumb responses that always need to be ignored or even corrected by rational faculties. They are appraisals of what you have just experienced or thought of – in this sense; they are also a form of information processing.
Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain.
This matching between prior models (based on past experience) and current experience happens automatically and subconsciously. Intuitions occur when your brain has made a significant match or mismatch (between the cognitive model and current experience), but this has not yet reached your conscious awareness.
It is time to stop the witch hunt on intuition, and see it for what it is: a fast, automatic, subconscious processing style that can provide us with very useful information that deliberate analysing can’t.
https://theconversation.com/is-it-r...-gut-feelings-a-neuroscientist-explains-95086

 

[Moral Orel]

It seems to be fundelmental knowledge in human and we interactly react to moral situations like there is something wrong and that justice needs to be done.

You just keep declaring that we're acting as though it's objective. But we could only say that if we know how folks would act if it wasn't objective to compare it to.

As previously pointed out much earlier in the thread, we act as though flavors are objectively good and other people are incorrect to disagree with us. We've all done it: told another person they're wrong to think something tastes good or bad when we were disgusted or enjoyed it, respectively. But how about another example?

Let's suppose I accidentally place my hand on a hot stove and the stove burns me, so I pull my hand away. I say that I did so because the stove caused me pain, and I dislike pain, so I acted to remove the experience I disliked.

You would say that the stove was morally wrong to burn me, and I recognized that through my intuition, so I acted as though I was wronged. Yes, yes, I know. You're going to say that inanimate objects are not moral agents so it doesn't count. But so what? I still acted the same way I would act if a man cut my hand with a knife. So we act the same whether we're in a situation you would invoke morality as we would act in a situation where you would not invoke morality.

So why should we think morality is objective because we act just like we do when we simply dislike something?

 

[stevevw]

If you mean metaphyisics, then no.

Actually more along the lines of epistemology.

Well, I'm human and I disagree, so which humans? How did you get together and decide this?

Ok I forgot your a moral nilhilist. I keep forgetting. We if thats how you see things there is not a lot I can say then. But happens only say how it is views under moral realism. Basically humans act like things matter. Especially moral situations. You say your human and moral situations don't matter. So for example when you see an old lady getting mugged in the street that doesnt matter.

What is "justice"? Who defines it?

I think its self defined. Its something once again we intuitively know and want. Certainly don't want injustice that seems very clear in the way society has been acting. So it seems humans do act like "Justice" is something we cannot play around with and change due to subjective or even Nilhilism.