Is there Objective Morality?

[Tinker Grey]

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.

The question wasn't about whether you always do them but rather do you always know them.

 

[stevevw]

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

No thats not how morality works and thats the point to show how silly using food tastes is as a way to describe how morality works under a subjective system.

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

Thats sill. Its always a moral issue and the moment we don't make it a moral issue then we have become robots or insects maybe. Its a moral issue whetehr we like it or not.

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.

Yes so when I say "Make objective" that isn't made objective by human subjective opinions. Its made objective by humans using rational and logical thinking to find the facts and truth outside humans about what is the better/best way to behave morally.

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.

But you can only act like something is subjectively true to yourself. It doesnt apply to others. But with morality we act like the moral truth applies to others and the whole world infact and no subjective opinions can change that.

So we act differently when it comes to moral matters. They matter more than our preferences and opinions. We treat them like there needs to be a right and wrong answer. Whereas with subjective preferences and feelings there is no right and wrong way to feel or prefer something.

(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.

No your thinking of social behaviour which is more about group dynamics, co-operating and surviving. If bears have morals then we need to lock bears up. Protecting cubs is a animal instinct not a moral act.

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

But that just makes no sense at all for whether something progressing towards something better. People don't use the morals have changed arguemnet just to show how morals are different. They use it to show how bad we were in the past because we were ignorant and now we have progressed to be more moral.

But people don't speak and act about morality changing like its just different. They claim things have improved. They use the slavery example of how people use to think enslaving humans was OK. Now we are much better and have put a stop to slavery. But like I said improving morality means there has to be an objective to measure the improvement.

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

Yes good point. So we discover the truth (objective) by using rational and logiocal thinking.

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?

Most nations have constitutions and treaties that support human "Life "being valuable. They even make it a "Human Right" a "Natural born Right" and give it "Intrinsic value". Evolution makes "Life" valuable and so does the social sciences and they are sciences so are independent from subjective views.

Just about everything humans do, how we strive to keep alive, look after ourselves, want ways to help make life better and help those who have a diminished life have a better one shows we value life. So we have a number of independent supports that make human "Life" valuable.

 

[stevevw]

The question wasn't about whether you always do them but rather do you always know them.

Oh I thought there was an implication that my morals happen to line up with the objective ones I claim to exist.

I think intuitively we all know a core set of moral right and wrong. Like its wrong to torture a child for fun or wrong to not keep promises. But we can become so hardened to moral truths that we can show little guilt or reaction or learn a way to get away with doing wrong and then rationalize it was OK to do.

I think those who claim that these moral truths don't exist can be anything from in denial to a psychopath. If someone said I think abusing children is morally OK we would think that person objectively wrong and not trust them with our kids. I don't think culture or personal opinions can change that. So we intuitive know these moral truths but sometimes it may be harder to work out why they are moral truths.

 

[durangodawood]

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

Lots of Christians disagree on assisted suicide for people in extreme uncurable suffering. So if you have an opinion you must disagree with some of them.

The problem Bradskii identifies sounds like this to me: even if there is an objective morality, if its not demonstrable then we are all just living by subjective opinions on what that morality consists of. And so morality is functionally subjective in the context of human living, even if there is an objective morality in some cosmic or divine sense.

 

[o_mlly]

Lots of Christians disagree on assisted suicide for people in extreme uncurable suffering. So if you have an opinion you must disagree with some of them

Faithful Catholics do not disagree on the evil of assisted suicide That others might disagree with Catholic teaching does not render the immorality of the act into the fog of subjective oblivion. Remember the "flat earthers". Believing an error does not elevate that error magically into the realm of truth.

For a principled argument on the evil of assisted suicide see: Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) | John Paul II

 

[o_mlly]

The problem Bradskii identifies sounds like this to me: even if there is an objective morality, if its not demonstrable then we are all just living by subjective opinions on what that morality consists of. And so morality is functionally subjective in the context of human living, even if there is an objective morality in some cosmic or divine sense.

It's an epistemological problem. Reality is independent of the thinking mind. So, how can we know reality with any assurance? If morality is functionally subjective then all science is functionally subjective. But that cannot be for reality is singular, ie., science cannot be this and not this at the same time and place. So it is also with morality.

 

[durangodawood]

Faithful Catholics do not disagree on the evil of assisted suicide That others might disagree with Catholic teaching does not render the immorality of the act into the fog of subjective oblivion. Remember the "flat earthers". Believing an error does not elevate that error magically into the realm of truth.

For a principled argument on the evil of assisted suicide see: Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) | John Paul II

Of course you have beliefs and arguments backing up your opinion. So do other Christians who hold the opposite opinion.

The morality of assisted suicide lingers in the realm of opinion. Your argument vs my argument, settled within the individual mind. Sounds subjective.

If on the other hand there is an objective rule, where is it??? Its not like people havent been looking for thousands of years. What objective rule have they turned up for us to examine? None.

 

[durangodawood]

It's an epistemological problem. Reality is independent of the thinking mind. So, how can we know reality with any assurance? If morality is functionally subjective then all science is functionally subjective. But that cannot be for reality is singular, ie., science cannot be this and not this at the same time and place. So it is also with morality.

So what things are subjective? Is there anything thats not "reality" that we can call subjective?

 

[o_mlly]

If on the other hand there is an objective rule, where is it?

The rule must be the same one that elevates any scientific opinion into the realm of objectivity. What is that rule?

 

[durangodawood]

The rule must be the same one that elevates any scientific opinion into the realm of objectivity. What is that rule?

Demonstrability. Thats what elevates scientific opinion into objectivity. Show me.

 

[o_mlly]

So what things are subjective? Is there anything that not "reality" and therefore necessarily objective?

The thinking mind is necessarily subjective. The thinking mind can grasp objective truths. If some think the earth flat and others think the earth spherical then only one idea is correct as to the reality of the earth's shape. If some think assisted suicide is immoral and others think it moral then only one idea is correct about the morality of the act.

Demonstrability. Thats what elevates scientific opinion into objectivity. Show me.

No, not good enough. Do you know how many demonstrated scientific claims in the physical sciences held in 1900 are now debunked? I am more certain of claims arrived at through deductive reasoning than inferential reasoning, ie., the scientific method.

 

[durangodawood]

The thinking mind is necessarily subjective. The thinking mind can grasp objective truths. If some think the earth flat and others think the earth spherical then only one idea is correct as to the reality of the earth's shape. If some think assisted suicide is immoral and others think it moral then only one idea is correct about the morality of the act.

Right. Any why should we believe the flat earther over the round earther? Stay tuned!

No, not good enough. Do you know how many demonstrated scientific claims in the physical sciences held in 1900 are now debunked? I am more certain of claims arrived at through deductive reasoning than inferential reasoning, ie., the scientific method.

At some point our deductive reasoning has to be about something. There must be premises. Those premises have weight if they are demonstrable to others. They lack weight if they are mere claims.

Of course our demonstrations can be wrong and subject to correction. But at least theres an open path of investigation, in contrast to mere claims.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

So shifting the burden of proof. Is that all you got?

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

I say morality isn't a rational sort of thing, it's an emotional kind of thing, so this question is nonsense to me. You claim it's rational, so prove it's incorrect rationally.

I already answered the other questions. You've refused to answer mine for a second time.

 

[o_mlly]

At some point our deductive reasoning has to be about something. There must be premises. Those premises have weight if they are demonstrable to others. They lack weight if they are mere claims.

Of course our demonstrations can be wrong and subject to correction. But at least theres an open path of investigation, in contrast to mere claims.

There are always some irrational people who will reject any premise if the conclusion is not to their liking. I think a few such people have posted in this thread. We call their rejection irrational because their conviction bias blinds them to the obvious. For example, the rejection of: "We ought to want the things we need to be human" is one such premise. All you can really do with the irrational is dismiss them. They'll whine and complain that they don't feel that way but that's about all they can do.

So shifting the burden of proof. Is that all you got? ... I say morality isn't a rational sort of thing, it's an emotional kind of thing ..

 

[Hans Blaster]

To say that evolution is how morality came about is to limit everything to physical interactions and disregard the non physical. That is why evolution struggles with the social sciences and ideas like consciousness and morality and making humans agents of they own lives and evolution.

There is nothing "non-physical" interacting with human beings.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are always some irrational people who will reject any premise

I don't accept premises as true without a reason to believe that those premises are true. That's what it means to think rationally. To have reasons.

For example, the rejection of: "We ought to want the things we need to be human" is one such premise.

I asked for a reason to believe this, you don't have one. So I do not hold that belief because I have no reason to. However, you believe this for literally no reason at all. All you can do with the irrational is dismiss them.

 

[o_mlly]

So I do not hold that belief because I have no reason to.

Of course you don't. That's why we must dismiss your posts as a non-serious.

One who believes, or at least accept as true, that, "One ought to want the things that are really bad for them" would explain why some binge read comic books with sleeves of Oreo cookies rather than do their homework.

 

[Bradskii]

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 didn't receive any answer as far as I know. If you did reply, then do you mind giving a brief precis of what your response was? And nobody is suggesting that any answer you give leads to a proof that morality is objective or not. I want to investigate the consequences of it being objective.

If morality is objective then what is right or wrong constitutes facts about the world. X is wrong - it doesn't matter what you think. So, can you think of a moral act that is factually wrong but with which you disagree? That is, it is objectively wrong but in your personal opinion it is morally acceptable. And I'm not going to tie you down to certain acts - you have an infinity of them to ponder.

If there isn't one then that will mean that you are in agreement with all objective moral facts. So if we have a moral problem then you will know the answer. You'll effectively be omniscient.

O_mlly couldn't think of a single act with which he'd disagree. How about you?

 

[Bradskii]

Oh I thought there was an implication that my morals happen to line up with the objective ones I claim to exist.

I think intuitively we all know a core set of moral right and wrong. Like its wrong to torture a child for fun or wrong to not keep promises. But we can become so hardened to moral truths that we can show little guilt or reaction or learn a way to get away with doing wrong and then rationalize it was OK to do.

I think those who claim that these moral truths don't exist can be anything from in denial to a psychopath. If someone said I think abusing children is morally OK we would think that person objectively wrong and not trust them with our kids. I don't think culture or personal opinions can change that. So we intuitive know these moral truths but sometimes it may be harder to work out why they are moral truths.

And that didn't answer the question either. I guess you actually didn't answer it earlier because, as you say, you misunderstood the question. I don't want to know how you determine morality. I don't want to know what you intuitively determine. I want to know if there is an objective moral fact with which you disagree.

 

[Bradskii]

The rule must be the same one that elevates any scientific opinion into the realm of objectivity. What is that rule?

Could it be evidence? Certainly not faith. You just said that all faithful Catholics would reject assisted suicide. Which is a tautology as all you've said is that those who have faith in the teaching that assisted suicide is wrong think that assisted suicide is...wrong. Opinion wouldn't be it as that would make it subjective by definition. So that leads us to the only other option: evidence.

And I think that we may have a problem here. Because not everyone accepts whatever evidence is being presented. Someone will present some facts about the world and the other person will reject them (I bet you know where this is headed). The person rejecting the facts will say that they interpret the evidence differently. And you can't say that you can do that but it's verbotten to everyone else. Sauce for the goose as they say.

I guess we can try this out and see what happens. And bearing in mind your suggestion that repetition may be required to reach an understanding, this may take some time. So let's propose an objective scientific fact and see if anyone rejects it. Let me see...how about: the planet is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Now unless one claims the right to interpret evidence as they see fit to align with their beliefs then they'll accept the evidence. If they don't then they can't reject someone else's right to do the same.

So, do you accept the evidence? Or do you think we can all interpret what is presented in the way that we think best fits our view of reality as we see it.