Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

Morality is both subjective and objective. It's objective due to the influences of the surrounding environment, our biology, and the experiences we undertake, but it is subjective because the environment, biology and experiences are fluid... See the butterfly effect.
Butterfly effect - Wikipedia

...With that being said, it's okay for one to argue that God has initiated the butterfly effect, and that our current, common morality is based in His wisdom from the beginning.

...One could also argue that it's based in nature.

We can respect both POV's.

I just thought of QM when you said morality can be both subjective and objective like a quantum state can be both a particle and a wave.

 

[o_mlly]

I didn't ask if you knew all things moral and immoral. I'm asking you for any example where something is, in your term, objectively moral, with which you disagree. And if a fellow Christian disagrees with your position, how do we know who is right?

Can't think of one. Got any concrete examples?

 

[o_mlly]

Astonishing. They choose what they think is good for them, and I choose what I think is good for me. It seems like we're in agreement that the matter is subjective.

It beats me as well. If I were to say 'If they are rational then they chose what was really good for them - therefore it's subjective' or I suggested that 'morality is a construct of the rational mind - therefore it's subjective' then no-one would bat an eyelid. But these are comments being used against subjectivity.

Is it a suicidal and rational act to lay down your life for your friends, eg., the soldier who leaps on the grenade to save his squad? Yes. Is it a suicidal and rational act for the teenager who hangs herself because she's been publicly shamed on Facebook? No.

Was the soldier's act "really good" for him? Yes. Was the teenager's act "really good" for her? No.

Unless, as instructed many times in this thread, the human acts are concretely offered then a moral determination is not possible.

 

[o_mlly]

Something isn't correct just because its the norm though. So why should we go along with what is normal? Why shouldn't we resist what nature compels us to do?

So, you're OK with Jeffery Dahmer's acts?

 

[Bradskii]

Can't think of one.

Wow. We have the fount of all knowledge available to answer all moral problems. Who needs to go to Delphi? Now we know that any religious views that don't align with yours are...just wrong. This is quite a responsibility that you have. There's me thinking that doubt and a certain humility were things that the pope encouraged:

'In fact, Pope Francis has explicitly endorsed doubt in the life of faith. In a 2013 interview published in America Magazine, the pontiff said that the space where one finds and meets God must include an area of uncertainty. For him, to say that you have met God with total certainty or that you have the answers to all questions is a sign that God is not with you. Be uncertain, he counsels. Let go of exaggerated doctrinal "security." A devout faith must be an uncertain faith.' https://theweek.com/articles/446850/pope-francis-wants-catholics-doubt-church-hes-right

I guess I was wrong. And that's why you haven't been putting forward any arguments. None are required.

 

[o_mlly]

Wow. We have the fount [sic] of all knowledge available to answer all moral problems.

Why the "wow"? I told you I had an advantage over atheists.

 

[Bradskii]

Unless, as instructed many times in this thread, the human acts are concretely offered then a moral determination is not possible.

You mean that you'll be unable to give us your moral determination unless you have enough details.

 

[o_mlly]

You mean that you'll be unable to give us your moral determination unless you have enough details.

Progress! We prefer to call them the "circumstances", not "details".

 

[Bradskii]

Why the "wow"? I told you I had an advantage over atheists.

This isn't just atheists. This is literally everyone. You have told us that you can't think of a single example where you'd be wrong. This includes all religions. This includes all denominations of all religions. This includes everyone within each of the denominations within each religion.

Now if we were talking about subjective opinions then there'd be no problem. But we ain't. You say that you're always right when it comes to objective morality. It's not your opinion. You're telljng us that you actually know all the answers to all moral problems.

That's got to be worth a 'wow'.

 

[Moral Orel]

So, you're OK with Jeffery Dahmer's acts?

I hate all the same extreme violent acts you do, probably. You're supposed to be showing me that this is a rational endeavor though. How I feel doesn't have anything to do with that.

So explain to me rationally, using reason, and without appeals to emotion, that we ought to follow human nature and not resist it.

 

[stevevw]

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.

thats a strange thing to say considering it would knock out just about everyone on this thread. First I disagree that I don't have any education in a relevant field. Second why can't we get those educated opinions from those in the field.

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

Most people agree that killing innocent people is wrong. Those who don't are wrong and we can show they are wrong. Thats the point.

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

So its no sense in asking them about which Star Treck they like.

Yes it does.

Are you saying that a person can be convicted of murder based on someones subjective view of the facts. If that happened in science we would not have any facts. Imagine the shape of the earth depended on someones personal view.

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

Yes but in most other cases the evdience is clear and guilt is established. Just because it may have been impossible to find someone guilty doesnt mean the courts are useless in finding the truth/facts of a matter. Any subjective views of witnesses for example are tested and weighed up against other evidence.

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

I never said it was about the best show. It is about the evidence, the facts of the matter. Proving whether a wrong was done. The fact that its about prosecuting and defending a wrong being done shows that a right or wrong answer/verdict needs to be objectively established. Either they did it or didnt do it.

It's generally considered to be so.

So therefore there has to be some objective measure of what is justice and what is not justice.

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

I have already explained this so I have given an answer many times. You just dont like it or understand it. We don't measure morals in degrees like with a protractor. Its more a matter of severity. I used the word degrees as it can also apply epistemically. We know that things vary not just in physical measurements.

So we can know that say genocide is more severe or worse than manslaughter or that stealing a persons lifes savings is worse than a kid taking a candy bar. Thoughboth are wrong.

Theres no test tube that we can use to prove thats a moral truth (objective) but we do know that this is a moral wrong and it matters that we are able to say thats its objectively wrong and cannot be open to be changed by anyones subjective view or opinion.

So its sort of self evident. Because we intuitive know this is our way of showing that the sense or recognition of those moral truths has been given the green light or in the case of a moral wrong throw up the red flag. What is considered morlaly right and wrong has been processed already and analysed and our intuition is the recognition of that. It meets all the requirements for supporing something objectively like in science.

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

But your highlighting an outliner and saying that this represents how things normally are. Its a logical fallacy. The court finds a clear right guilty verfict 99% of the time. Saying that they occassionally get it wrong or can't find the truth doesnt mean ther system is not capable and designed to find the truth. That is one of the great qualities of a western legal system as its "innocent until proven guilty" and thats also in the UN Human Rights.

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,

Thats because youve been looking in all the wrong places and not understand how moral realism works. The fact that most people agree and think there is a core moral truths that we all must follow and are not subject to subjective change speaks volumns that humans are actually witnesses for the prosecution that there are objective morals. Why acknowledge there are moral truths if you dont really believe that. Seems strange.

and the fact that morality can be explained quite well in a subjective way seems to indicate very strongly that morality is indeed SUBJECTIVE.

Thats a logical fallacy that doesnt follow. I have mentioned this before ut you seem to repeat it. That you don't know its a falalcy shows that you don't really understand the issue.

 

[o_mlly]

You say that you're always right when it comes to objective morality.

? It seems you are confused about the meaning of "objective". By definition, one who objectively knows reality cannot be in error. Is the objective scientist who thinks that gravity is a natural force possibly in error?

 

[Bradskii]

Thats because youve been looking in all the wrong places and not understand how moral realism works. The fact that most people agree and think there is a core moral truths that we all must follow and are not subject to subjective change speaks volumns that humans are actually witnesses for the prosecution that there are objective morals.

So don't forget the question that was asked, Steve. If morality is objective then do all moral acts that are either objectively right or wrong align with your personal views? If you disagree with any at all, then let's hear about it. If you agree with every single one then you know the answer to all moral problems.

 

[Bradskii]

? It seems you are confused about the meaning of "objective". By definition, one who objectively knows reality cannot be in error.

There's no need to repeat yourself. You gave your answer. Maybe Steve will give his answer as well.

 

[o_mlly]

I hate all the same extreme violent acts you do, probably.

It's not a question of hating. The issue has nothing to do with emotions. Should Dahmer have resisted his unnatural impulses? Why not?

Something isn't correct just because its the norm though.

So you believe Dahmer's cannibalism was both abnormal and yet correct?

So why should we go along with what is normal?

So you believe Dahmer's murder and cannibalism, although abnormal, were still OK?

Why shouldn't we resist what nature compels us to do?

So you believe that although Dahmer's acts were unnatural they were still OK?​

 

[o_mlly]

There's no need to repeat yourself.

I wish that were true. But, alas, as Aristotle pointed out, "... repetition is an essential part of learning; engaging with a topic multiple times deepens and hastens students' engagement and understanding processes." Some students, it seems, need more repetition than others.

 

[Bradskii]

I wish that were true. But, alas, as Aristotle pointed out, "... repetition is an essential part of learning; engaging with a topic multiple times deepens and hastens students' engagement and understanding processes." Some students, it seems, need more repetition than others.

I get the need for repetition. You wouldn't believe the number of times that I have had to repeat a question just to have it answered! And I understand what you posted. You made it quite clear. Crystal clear in fact. If I'd been in any doubt I would have asked for clarification. I wasn't, so I didn't.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why not. A truth is something that can be regarded as fact.

Then provide the facts that prove I like vanilla Ice cream more than Chocolate. Go ahead; I’ll wait

But killing is a moral issue. Even without the law we can reason that someone killing an innocent person with intent is worse (more severe) a wrong then killing in self defense.

Killing is only a moral issue if you choose to make it a moral issue.

No it doesnt. Throughout society and nations the value of human life has been reflected in objective terms. In laws, ethical codes, constitutions, Human Rights conventions. These are based on values we make objective and not open to subjective change.

Values we MAKE objective? Didn’t you say earlier, that which is objective is beyond mankind? How can mankind alter something that is beyond mankind? Sounds like you’ve contradicted yourself.

Yeah but that doesn't mean humans cannot reason a truth.

No; your argument is that because people ACT like “X” is objectively true, it must be objectively true. Acting like something is objectively true is the same action as acting like something is subjectively true, because all acts are based on subjective thinking.

Bears don't have morals.

(LOL) you think just because they don’t speak english and tell you, they don’t have morals? No my friend; animals DO have their own code of morals.

So if you are saying that morals have improved or progressed towards something better then that can only happen if there is an objective basis to measure the improvement or progress.

I never said improved, I said changed; just different.

Under subjective morality it is only about personal preferences and opinions. these things cannot progress towards something betetr. They are just different for what they were before.

By George; I think you’ve got it!

It is if we can reason that human life is valuable. Because the rational and logical thinking is what determines the facts or truths of the matter

No, rational and logical thinking does not determine facts, or truth, they are used to discover facts or truth.

which then help us determine what is the best way to behave morally by measuring what behaviour supports human "Life" being valuable.

Morality is not defined by what supports human “Life” being valuable. That’s sounds like your subjective opinion. Again; what objective proof do you have that killing innocent children is morally wrong?[/QUOTE]

 

[o_mlly]

I get the need for repetition. You wouldn't believe the number of times that I have had to repeat a question just to have it answered! And I understand what you posted. You made it quite clear. Crystal clear in fact. If I'd been in any doubt I would have asked for clarification. I wasn't, so I didn't.

That's great. Glad I could help you out.

 

[stevevw]

So don't forget the question that was asked, Steve. If morality is objective then do all moral acts that are either objectively right or wrong align with your personal views? If you disagree with any at all, then let's hear about it. If you agree with every single one then you know the answer to all moral problems.

I have already answered this and its a silly way to disprove objective morality. In fact its probably consists on a few logical fallacies that one.

If I say yes that objective morality lines up with my opinions of morality it doesn't follow that morality must be subjective because it may well be that my morals line up with what is objective. If I say my morality doesnt line up completely then it doesnt follow that morality cannot be objective either.

I can say that I am a sinner and I do what I know I should not do. So therefore there are things I at least not want to be moral truths. I know they are the right thing to do but I find myself not doing them. Thats the thing about moral truths they can conflict with what we want as a subject.