Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

They are objective in that each area makes either arguements or have scientific evidence for why "LIfe" is valuable. For example the US declaration makes the right to Life a natural right. This has been argued as a right from who humans are. Or take social sciences. They all can investigate human behaviour and find the harm or positive effects certain behaviours have. This is based on science so its not written by humans subjectively. Or take evolution. Biologists agree that

Many think that life is valueble, that does not make it "objective". Biologist does not study moral philosophy.

Yes and that is why I pointed out that all of the domains converge into making human 'Life" valuable. Whether its the US declaration, countries laws, UN rights and conventions, social sciences, religious belief, biology, anthropology, archeology it doesnt matter. They all say, behave and make explicit that human "LIfe" is valuable.

If it where "objective" there would be no reason to codify it.

But you do understand that humans are capable of rational and critical thinking. We can determine facts/truths with this kind of thinking. Those deetrmined facts/truths are independent of human subjective thinking because they are based on established facts outside humans.

Indeed, and you still havent been able to support any moral facts or truths.

Like I said we can use sciences like psychology or anthropology to understand human behaviour and make a case that certain behaviour is better/best than others based on what these sciences say about how human life is valuable.

Better/best for who? Who gets to decide? How can a better/best be objective when it governs moral subjects? Who has the authority?

Its not wishful. So if we can still debate argue moral positions then this implies that there is a right or wrong answer. It implies we can change our morals, improve our morals. But none of that can be done without an objective morality because otherwise "what are you debating/arguing about".

No, thats patently false. Learn what moral pilosophy is, not your strawman.

What is the measure of what is better or worse. If its just about feelings and personal views then this is impossible to argue about. They are just subjective states of humans and cannot be right or wrong or improved.

We surely can argue about things that isnt objective.

Which is the most beautiful car? Who is strongest in middle earth? Who would win in a fight, Darth Vader or Gandalf. All of this can be debated, and quite hotly too.

 

[Kylie]

Yes that is true and that is part of it. Not harming humans should be part of an objective moral as it is about valuing human "Life". But thats not all that supports objective morality. Its also our intuition of it and how we live like morals are objective. Its how we can reason out moral truths (better/best ways to behave morally) to find and test that truth.

If intuition plays any part of it, it's not objective.

Under subjective morality using harm as the measure of why something is wrong doesnt work because then we can say the meaning of harm is also subjective. What one person calls harm another calls non harmful. There needs to be an anchor outside humans to make any protest against moral wrong really wrong in the world.

Yes, the meaning of harm IS subjective. Something that would harm one person could be something that another person can get over very quickly.

So we could say that under a subjective moral system murder, rape, theft, etc, is not really wrong in any factual or truth way beyond humans and therefore there really is no right and wrong morally.

When I was younger, I went to a pet shop and I saw in one of the cages where they have birds one bird that would constantly be mating with one of the other birds. He'd fly down and BAM! And then flutter around, and BAM again. Constantly, every twenty seconds or so. The poor female bird had half the feathers in her back pulled out from this. Do you think that any of the other birds in that cage cared? I don't. They certainly didn't do anything about it. So while that kind of action might be considered wrong by most humans, it doesn't seem to go beyond Humanity - which fits in exactly with what you said would be the case of morality was subjective.

The problem is it doesn't matter what environment it happens in be it atheist, religious and also what religion, culture. All young children even at 6 months which is very little time to be influenced by parents or adults have this knowledge like their are wired that way aboy right and wrong.

This study was talking of ages about 20 months, not six. It was also done AFTER the one that looked at six-month-olds, and it said no study had looked at children that young, thus suggesting that the study looking at six month olds had been invalidated.

its more rudiment than that. They can setup age appropriate tests based on child development stage models to see how babies respond/react. The beauty of this is that such a young child has hardly had any time to be encultured so is really showing innate behaviour.

Even if it did show innate behaviour, it was not conclusively shown that it was innate morality.

Sorry it wasnt the last time I looked. The other one should be OK in fact from memory I think its about the same article but a commentary of it by Daily Mail. But the one by Bloom should give you all the info. He is the leading researcher in this field.

The one from the daily mail was about 19 month olds.

OK so in measuring something to see that its zero we have established its zero light. That is similar to morality. It can either be right or wrong (light or dark) but it can also be measurements of varying levels of light and dark like there can be degree of killing.

Glad to see you are finally agreeing with me. It IS like measuring light. Now, telling me, if we can measure morality, what units do we measure it in?

Yes but thats intuitively. When we see a women being assaulted in the street we intuitive know something is wrong. We may not know the circumstances from a distance but we know something is wrong. Then we can get to know what the circumstances are and determine the moral truth.

First of all, everything you just said here is totally irrelevant to the point.

You said you had never said that killing is wrong regardless of the circumstances. I pointed out where you did exactly that.

Your example about the woman being assaulted on the street was nothing but a deflection from the actual issue AND it is perfectly explainable by empathy, which I have described many times in this thread already.

 

[Kylie]

No but I can read up on it. I have read extensively but I cannot say I have read a lot about anthropology.

So your "guarantee" is pretty much meaningless, since you have no education in any relevant field, and thus don't actually know what you are talking about.

The problem is as most of the other domains support the idea that humans know there are certain moral truths I would think that anthropologists would also agree.

So all people agree that killing is wrong, except for those who don't.

On a related note, every single person is a Star Trek fan (except for those who aren't).

They have but that doesn’t mean that the verdict was subjectively reached.

Yes it does.

It may be there was insufficient evidence...

In which case it is impossible to stay he is objectively guilty.

that the defence presented a poor case....

Objectivity does not depend on who makes the better case. It does not depend on who puts on the best show.

The point is the court is there to find justice even if it goes wrong sometimes. Let me ask you this. Would it be regarded as an injustice if someone innocent was found guilty?

It's generally considered to be so.

Why not. I think its a very good match. It explains how something can objectively determined as right or wrong (either they killed or they didnt). And how that act of killing can vary (severity) with the different degrees of killing. But we dont need that system anyway. We intuitively know it on the streets. The courts are just adjudicating be it in a more formal manner.

So how do we measure the different degrees in moral situations? I keep asking and I never get an answer!

Your missing the point. It may or may not be about a secret lover and that may not be relevant on its own. The point is we can investiagte a matter to see if there is any guilt or innocence and we do that be the evdience and facts and not personal opinion.

Ultimately, it comes down to his motives, and that is impossible to determine. Or perhaps you know of a telepath?

But that doesnt make it useless overall. It say that because we cannot determine what really happened and therefore investigating to find the truth or facts is a useless endeavour doesnt follow.

The point is there may be baffling cases but we should be able to investigate to find what really happened. Its already been happening for 100s of years. People are found guilty, they did kill their wife according to the facts (evdience). But if there is no evdience or not enough evidence in a specific case that either doesnt find the truth or convicts an innocent person that doesnt negate the entire idea of using facts and evdience to establish the truth.

I think we are drifting off topic here and away from the morality issue and into a discussion about evidence in crime scene investigation.

OK fair enough well what can we do then. But the logic that because I havent presented evdience to your liking for objective morality therefore theres no objective morlaity doesnt follow.

I agree, the absence of evidence that morality is objective doesn't itself prove that morality is not objective. But the fact that it seems impossible to find any evidence when all the moral objectivists posting in this thread have been trying to find it speaks volumes, and the fact that morality can be explained quite well in a subjective way seems to indicate very strongly that morality is indeed SUBJECTIVE.

 

[o_mlly]

So you don't think that moral acts which are subjective ought to be discussed when there is disgreement? Of course you do. So that we ought to discuss and reach agreement on who is right is applicable whether one considers the act to be objective or subjective.

? Reality is that the morality of the concrete human act is objectively moral or immoral. Thinking correctly or incorrectly does not make it so. Remember the "flat earthers"? Is the earth flat because they think so? No.

While you're thinking about that, did you have an answer to the question as to whether you might be wrong on times?

Do you mean that time when rape can be a moral act? Nope. Do you mean the times morality can be subjective? Nope. But I have an advantage over you and the other non-believers: I believe in God and His truths as revealed to us, none of which are contrary to right reason.

 

[o_mlly]

You've done no such thing.

How would you show the moon exists? By the light it reflects? You do that by comparing the light from the moon with the light from next to it, which matches the plain sky. This is a measurement. You are measuring the light using light from a different part of the sky as the basis for the measurement. Thus, you have to make a measurement of the moon's light to determine that it is there.

The same is true for any other method you could use. If there was no difference between the moon and not-moon, then you could never know the moon was there. And you only know the moon is there by measuring those differences. Feel free to suggest any other moon detection method, and I'll explain too you how it requires a measurement.

In any case, you STILL have not answered my question.

How do we know that the moon objectively exists?

I'm going to keep asking until you answer it.

That's not how you or I see things. Our photon detectors don't "count" the photons detected. Those little rods and cones just get excited all on their own and share their excitement via electrical signals to my brain via the ganglion cells through the optic nervous system. The brain interprets those electrical signals into an image based on our memory and prior experiences.

Now let's get back to categorizing moral acts objectively.

Reason allows us the insight to categorize creatures based on the creatures' species specific and unique properties. We call this rational process abstraction. That is, we strip the particulars of time and place from the particular things and focus only on commonalities, the essential properties that all those kinds of creatures possess in all times and all places. Stripping time and place (space) means stripping all measurements and all other material properties that individuate so as to see the essences of the species.

As to mammals, we need only observe the species specific properties that identify a mammal, eg., mammary glands. No need to count them; it is sufficient to observe them. As to the celestial bodies we call moons, it is sufficient to observe that the body orbits a planet and reflects light from some other object. No need to measure anything. Ecce luna.

As to the morality of human acts, acts which promote human existence and human flourishing are good; act that impede either are not good. Now, if you argue that humans do not need to exist or flourish then I invite you to also stop eating and drinking or jump off a roof high enough to disrupt your bodily integrity and let us know how that worked out for you. We could add your input to the others, more data is always better than less.

 

[o_mlly]

What, no counter-argument? Just something that kinda-sorta-looks-like a premise if you squint hard enough? That's all you got?

No, that's all your argument deserved. Think about it.

 

[durangodawood]

The "ought" is saying "this is the correct act to choose". Invoking a sense of duty would be an attempt to justify the "ought".

So I look up correct and it says "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth".

So what kind of fact or truth do you suppose a moral prescription purports to accord with?

 

[partinobodycular]

Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months

So what!!!

They intuitively know that puppies are cute too. That doesn't make "cuteness" an objective trait.

"Intuitive" doesn't equal "objective".

Pointing to intuition as evidence for objectivity is misguided, and continuing to insist that it isn't, is self defeating, because repeating the same falsehoods over and over again doesn't make them true, it only makes you appear irrational.

Your argument from intuition has a glaring non sequitur, but I'll give you a chance to defend it. Why should we believe that an intuitive feeling is evidence of an objective truth?

 

[partinobodycular]

As to the morality of human acts, acts which promote human existence and human flourishing are good; act that impede either are not good.

Hello?

You just argued that good and bad aren't objective, they're relative. I.E acts are only good or bad relative to human flourishing.

You do understand the difference between objective and relative...right.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, that's all your argument deserved. Think about it.

If you had something you'd have posted it by now. I don't believe you have a counter-argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

So I look up correct and it says "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth".

So what kind of fact or truth do you suppose a moral prescription purports to accord with?

What kinds of facts are there?

There's "what you did" and there's "what you ought to have done". If those two things are the same, then you chose the correct act (did the right thing).

Consider the equation: 2+2=X There's "your answer" and there's "X=4". If those two things are the same then you chose the correct answer (gave the right answer).

 

[durangodawood]

There's "what you did" and there's "what you ought to have done". If those two things are the same, then you chose the correct act.

I asked you what it means to say we "ought" to do X. You said that means we do the "correct" thing.

So I ask what it means to be correct. And you bounce me back to ought.

Do you see the problem?

 

[partinobodycular]

There's "what you did" and there's "what you ought to have done". If those two things are the same, then you chose the correct act.

That doesn't answer the question, the question is, what determines "what you ought to have done"?

You could say "God's will". Or my opinion. Or the golden rule. But none of those would be objective. Morality is only objective if it's a trait that something possesses intrinsically, with no dependence upon anything else.

If morality is contingent upon something, then it's not objective, it's either relative or subjective.

 

[Moral Orel]

I asked you what it means to say we "ought" to do X. You said that means we do the "correct" thing.

So I ask what it means to be correct. And you bounce me back to ought.

Do you see the problem?

You're asking me to justify the "ought".

 

[Moral Orel]

That doesn't answer the question, the question is, what determines "what you ought to have done"?

That you would ask me this question tells me you haven't read my exchange with @durangodawood back to it's beginning. But I'm glad that you agree with me that is what D-Wood is asking. You two are asking me to do what I've argued is impossible to do to prove that my argument which shows its impossible is possible.

If morality is contingent upon something else, then it's not objective, it's either relative or subjective.

Consider:

X + 2 = 4

That X is equal to 2 is contingent on the other numbers being what they are, so X isn't objectively equal to 2, it's relative or subjective. That's silly.

 

[o_mlly]

If you had something you'd have posted it by now. I don't believe you have a counter-argument.

If you had an argument, it's not in post 1821. To counter an argument, one has to be presented first with an argument. You have not done so. Assertions are not arguments.

 

[durangodawood]

You're asking me to justify the "ought".

I'm just asking what it means to express things that way. Because if I follow the word meaning trail (sometime a dangerous thing), I get:

1. Moral prescription: you "ought" to do X =
2. X is the "correct" thing to do =
3. Doing X is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth"

2. was the way you put it.
3. is the next step where the dictionary leads me to explain 2.

So Im left asking what kind of fact or truth does a moral prescription purports to accord with. If it bounces back to doing what we "ought", then theres a tightly closed loop of meaning with no reference to anything..... and so it means nothing.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you had an argument, it's not in post 1821. To counter an argument, one has to be presented first with an argument. You have not done so. Assertions are not arguments.

Yeah, you got nothing.

 

[Moral Orel]

So Im left asking what kind of fact

And as I asked you before, "What kinds of facts are there?" I don't even understand this question.

I'm just asking what it means to express things that way. Because if I follow the word meaning trail (sometime a dangerous thing), I get:

1. Moral prescription: you "ought" to do X =
2. X is the "correct" thing to do =
3. Doing X is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth"

2. was the way you put it.
3. is the next step where the dictionary leads me to explain 2.

The "ought" is claimed to be true (claimed to be a fact). Your actual actions are "right" or "moral" when they are in accordance with what you "ought" to do. My argument shows that it's impossible to argue that any "ought" is true, and that's my whole point. Look back at my analogy:

Consider the equation: 2+2=X There's "your answer" and there's "X=4". If those two things are the same then you chose the correct answer (gave the right answer).

Is that an unclear explanation of "correct" and "right"?

 

[durangodawood]

And as I asked you before, "What kinds of facts are there?" I don't even understand this question.

Ok lets go there.
Fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true." (dictionary)

Now this is definitely leading me away from pure opinion and toward something grounded in at least an attempt to comport with the real world. Here's the trail: Ought > Correct > truth/fact > known/proven.