Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

No I look at how people behave morally. I see people acting like morality is objective. This supported by the literature.

People act the same way over subjective things. At best you're making another Argument from Popularity that most people believe morality is objective.

Murder is wrong. This is not just a matter of subjective personal preference, it’s an objective fact. That means if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you and for everyone else too. And if someone claims that murder is OK, then they’re mistaken.

This is the way many of us tend to think and talk about many moral issues, not just murder. We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.
The greatest moral challenge of our time? It's how we think about morality itself

To claim that moral judgments are subjective is to claim that they are true or false based on how a particular person feels. That’s not how most of us regard moral judgments.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

When I assert 'this is good' or 'that is evil', I do not mean that I experience desire or aversion, or that I have a feeling of liking or indignation. These subjective experiences may be present; but the judgment points not to a personal or subjective state of mind but to the presence of an objective value in the situation.

What is implied in this objectivity? Clearly, in the first place, it implies independence of the judging subject. If my assertion 'this is good' is valid, then it is valid not for me only but for everyone. If I say 'this is good', and another person, referring to the same situation, says 'this is not good', one or other of us must be mistaken... The validity of a moral judgment does not depend upon the person by whom the judgment is made...

In saying that moral values belong to the nature of reality... the statement implies an objectivity which is independent of the achievements of persons in informing their lives with these values, and is even independent of their recognising their validity. Whether we are guided by them or not, whether we acknowledge them or not, they have validity... objective moral value is valid independently of my will, and yet is something which satisfies my purpose and completes my nature...[20]
Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?

None of this is an argument for Moral Objectivism. It's just repeating your claim.

 

[Moral Orel]

It maybe true for you but its false as a moral system for everyone. It cannot work as others will have a different subjective view to you to work from and think its just as valid as yours.

Yep, that's how things are in the real world. People disagree about morality all the time.

I don't think I said "But then there would be no real Justice".

You did:

In otherwords there must be objective morals out there like some moral law. Otherweise moral values have no value at all. There would be no Justice otherwise.

Classic Argument from Consequences fallacy.

This is because they know morality is an important issue beyond someone "hating"or "feeling" that something is bad. Hating and feeling something is bad like horrible food or some bad music doesn't rachet up to how morlaity works in real life. What is determined as bad is subjective as well.

We know what your claim is, we're waiting for you to start demonstrating it.

 

[stevevw]

Just as there are several ideas what the objective morality contains, like ISIS, fundamental christians, catholics, hindu etc etc.

They all claim to have the "real objective" truth, explain how this is different?

If there is one truth then there can only be one truth. So this just shows that a subjective system allows for different subjective views to all compete as equals under the same system.

Justice for whom?

Equal justice for all

By what metric?

WE know and have measures for justice especially under Human Rights. The UN has a criteria for determining unjust treatment

And by what authority?

There is a legal system that protects people from unjust treatment. The UN Human Rights also has stipulations about the right to justice ie

Human rights are fundamental rights that are universally recognised and guaranteed to all because of their inherent nature as human beings. Universal human rights are based on the principles of equality, dignity, justice and fairness.
Human Rights | Justice and Peace Office

International standards recognize access to justice as both a basic human right and a means to protect other universally recognized human rights.
Our expansive view of access to justice includes not only one’s ability to access the courts and legal representation, but also one’s ability to engage effectively with law enforcement officials and to make use of informal, non-state justice mechanisms.

Do you notice how the UN HR states that there are certain fundemental rights that are "Universially" recognised and garenteed to everyone. As these Rights are inalienable they cannot be denied or altered by the subjective views of people or governments for that matter. So they are objective, they stand beyond human subjective views.

 

[stevevw]

What? No. "Honesty" doesn't determine your statements are false. Reality does.

What do you mean by reality. Even that implies something is either real or unreal which still requires some objective basis. Thats sounds like moral realism. The dictionary meaning of 'False' mentions
not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

So to be truthful you need to be honest. The reality is you are using "Honesty" as a measure of what is happening. You don't just sit there passivley scoring points from my replies being false based on your version of reality. If what I say is deemed false by you then that means you must also be able to know the truth to determine something is false.

You challenge and protest any misrepresentations, fallacies or what you determine as dishonesty. So you do care and actively engage like "Honesty" is an epistemic value that has to apply to be able to claim I am saying something false in the first place. And to make our debate coherent I might add as without that implict agreement between us that "Honesty" is a guide then it becomes just randomn statements exchanged that mean nothing about what is true or not independent of us.

 

[stevevw]

People act the same way over subjective things. At best you're making another Argument from Popularity that most people believe morality is objective.

You cannot act the same way over subjective things as you have no basis to do so. Its just your opinion.

The moment someone takes their subjective view that only applies to them and uses it beyond applying it to themselves they are giving up their subjective position and being objective. They are saying there is a truth to this matter that applies to everyone beyond my subjective view.

Its the same as the example I used about epistemic values and Honesty. If you are a subjectivists and have ever claimed someone has lied or misrepresented your arguement in a debate you are prescribing epistemic oughts (that we ought to be honest) in our debate like it is an objective value.

None of this is an argument for Moral Objectivism. It's just repeating your claim.

Yes it is. Listen to what they are saying. They are making a particular claim about how morality works for humans through reasoning ie

We refer to moral facts. And we prove our moral stance is the correct one by appealing to these facts.

When I assert 'this is good' or 'that is evil', I do not mean that I experience desire or aversion, or that I have a feeling of liking or indignation.but the judgment points not to a personal or subjective state of mind but to the presence of an objective value in the situation.

To claim that moral judgments are subjective is to claim that they are true or false based on how a particular person feels. That’s not how most of us regard moral judgments.

Whether we are guided by them or not, whether we acknowledge them or not, they have validity..

The above disputes your claim that feelings are the basis for morality. It states that feelings is not how most people determine morality but rather by objective facts. Its saying the objective language used for morality doesn't match a subjective system.

So they are saying its a fact that people act this way and we have evdience for this. At the very least its showing that people act contradictory if morality is subjective.

 

[stevevw]

Yep, that's how things are in the real world. People disagree about morality all the time.

So when they do disagree how do you determine who is right and who is wrong if there is not way to determine that truth beyone the people argueing that truth. We would have to say that each has an equal and valid claim to knowing what is right and wrong and no one can really claim another is wrong.

You did:

I don't even know what your point was now.

Classic Argument from Consequences fallacy.

Isn't that what subjective morality uses. They keep talking about the consequences of not valuing human wellbeing, happiness ect. So its musch the same.

We know what your claim is, we're waiting for you to start demonstrating it.

I though I already had. Ie I have supported that morality matters more than feelings and preferences. I have shown that a subujective system cannot work to determine what is truthfully right and wrong morally and you have agreed ie
Steve said
It maybe true for you but its false as a moral system for everyone. It cannot work as others will have a different subjective view to you to work from and think its just as valid as yours.
Moral Orel said
Yep, that's how things are in the real world.

I agree thats how things work in the real world and tahts what moral realism is. Its not what people say and claim but how they really act morlaly in the real world. They may claim that its OK for morals to be subjective and that there is no moral truth. But as soon someone does something wrong to them they claim its objectively wrong. This is supported by evdience from the real world.

Let me ask you. If peoples subjective moral view is just as valid as yours then how can you say they are wrong in any objective way.

 

[stevevw]

What? No. If "Life has intrinsic value" is true then "Life does not have intrinsic value" is false. That's it. Not "absurd". If "Orel has short hair" is true then "Orel has long hair" is false. Not "absurd".

It is absurd when you consider what human "Life" means as being valuable. Its different to hair styles. Understanding that human life has intrinsic value puts us in a position where if we negate that (don't value life) we are knowingly destroying something of natural value which is counter intuitive and contradicting what the value of life means. Thats absurd.

When you consider that not valuing life will lead to the destruction of ionnocent lives its absurd.

 

[stevevw]

Its not, many many people take this position. Its very well supported.

Then why do just about all philosophers claim that most peoples position is that they see morality (moral statements) as saying something objectively true about right and wrong behaviour. That it doesnt just apply to the subject but everyone.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why do just about all philosophers claim that most peoples position is that they see morality (moral statements) as saying something objectively true about right and wrong behaviour. That it doesnt just apply to the subject but everyone.

Thats not true.

Philosophers do philosophy, not market research.

And there are many philosophers who f.ex are value nihilists.

 

[VirOptimus]

If there is one truth then there can only be one truth. So this just shows that a subjective system allows for different subjective views to all compete as equals under the same system.

Equal justice for all WE know and have measures for justice especially under Human Rights. The UN has a criteria for determining unjust treatment There is a legal system that protects people from unjust treatment. The UN Human Rights also has stipulations about the right to justice ie

Human rights are fundamental rights that are universally recognised and guaranteed to all because of their inherent nature as human beings. Universal human rights are based on the principles of equality, dignity, justice and fairness.
Human Rights | Justice and Peace Office

International standards recognize access to justice as both a basic human right and a means to protect other universally recognized human rights.
Our expansive view of access to justice includes not only one’s ability to access the courts and legal representation, but also one’s ability to engage effectively with law enforcement officials and to make use of informal, non-state justice mechanisms.

Do you notice how the UN HR states that there are certain fundemental rights that are "Universially" recognised and garenteed to everyone. As these Rights are inalienable they cannot be denied or altered by the subjective views of people or governments for that matter. So they are objective, they stand beyond human subjective views.

You did not answer my question.

Why are there different systems of ”objective morality”?

And if the authority is humans, then its not objective.

Thst the UN have codified human rights makes them not objective as they are written by humans.

 

[Moral Orel]

What do you mean by reality. Even that implies something is either real or unreal which still requires some objective basis. Thats sounds like moral realism. The dictionary meaning of 'False' mentions
not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

Some things are real and factual, "oughts" are not.

So to be truthful you need to be honest. The reality is you are using "Honesty" as a measure of what is happening. You don't just sit there passivley scoring points from my replies being false based on your version of reality. If what I say is deemed false by you then that means you must also be able to know the truth to determine something is false.

You challenge and protest any misrepresentations, fallacies or what you determine as dishonesty. So you do care and actively engage like "Honesty" is an epistemic value that has to apply to be able to claim I am saying something false in the first place. And to make our debate coherent I might add as without that implict agreement between us that "Honesty" is a guide then it becomes just randomn statements exchanged that mean nothing about what is true or not independent of us.

I know you really really want that to be true, but it just isn't. Honesty requires comparing what you say to what you believe. I only care about what you say, so honesty isn't a part of it. I've debated full-blown trolls before. I don't care whether you're honest or not.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is absurd when you consider what human "Life" means as being valuable. Its different to hair styles. Understanding that human life has intrinsic value puts us in a position where if we negate that (don't value life) we are knowingly destroying something of natural value which is counter intuitive and contradicting what the value of life means. Thats absurd.

If life is not intrinsically valuable then we value something that is worthless, which is absurd. Your argument is not valid.

When you consider that not valuing life will lead to the destruction of ionnocent lives its absurd.

You aren't using "absurd" correctly. Taking innocent lives isn't nonsense, like trying to imagine a round square.

 

[Moral Orel]

So when they do disagree how do you determine who is right and who is wrong if there is not way to determine that truth beyone the people argueing that truth. We would have to say that each has an equal and valid claim to knowing what is right and wrong and no one can really claim another is wrong.

It depends on what premises we agree on.

I don't even know what your point was now.

That you like to use the Argument from Consequences fallacy.

Isn't that what subjective morality uses. They keep talking about the consequences of not valuing human wellbeing, happiness ect. So its musch the same.

Are you trying to defend your use of fallacious reasoning? I acknowledge that my arguments for morality are unsound. Are you ready to do that too?

I though I already had. Ie I have supported that morality matters more than feelings and preferences.

How much something matters is entirely based on feelings. If someone you know gets their wallet stolen, and if someone you know is raped, you feel much more strongly about the situation involving rape. There is a direct correlation between your feelings and how "obvious it is to everyone" that something is wrong.

I have shown that a subujective system cannot work to determine what is truthfully right and wrong morally

Argument from consequences fallacy.

and you have agreed ie
Steve said
It maybe true for you but its false as a moral system for everyone. It cannot work as others will have a different subjective view to you to work from and think its just as valid as yours.
Moral Orel said
Yep, that's how things are in the real world.

Yeah, if morality was subjective, there would be disagreements. There are disagreements, morality is subjective. What's the problem here?

I agree thats how things work in the real world and tahts what moral realism is.

No, how things work in the real world is subjective morality.

Its not what people say and claim but how they really act morlaly in the real world. They may claim that its OK for morals to be subjective and that there is no moral truth. But as soon someone does something wrong to them they claim its objectively wrong. This is supported by evdience from the real world.

It does not matter what people believe or claim. What matters is what you can prove. Pointing to people and saying, "Look! They agree and they act like they agree!" is not an argument and it is not evidence. I act like my nightstand did something wrong when I stub my toe on it too.

Let me ask you. If peoples subjective moral view is just as valid as yours then how can you say they are wrong in any objective way.

I don't. Why won't you listen to me?

 

[stevevw]

Thats not true.

Philosophers do philosophy, not market research.

And there are many philosophers who f.ex are value nihilists.

I am not saying that they have even asked people. They say it as a matter of their understanding of ethics and how people think this way about moral issues. Its really common sense.

 

[stevevw]

It depends on what premises we agree on.

So if you don't agree on a premise how do we decided who is right or wrong.

That you like to use the Argument from Consequences fallacy.

First isnt that fallacy used by just about everyone even subjectivists. Second sometimes consequences are relevant especially when talking morality and measuring right and wrong.

Are you trying to defend your use of fallacious reasoning? I acknowledge that my arguments for morality are unsound. Are you ready to do that too?

I know its a hard thing to support but I am still waiting for responses to the arguement I have given ie 1) if there are not epistemic values then theres no moral values. There are others as well.

How much something matters is entirely based on feelings. If someone you know gets their wallet stolen, and if someone you know is raped, you feel much more strongly about the situation involving rape. There is a direct correlation between your feelings and how "obvious it is to everyone" that something is wrong.

But that doesn't negate that there are moral truths. We do have feelings about moral issues but that doesnt mean moral issues are determined by feelings. Thats an assumption and fallacy.

As I mentioned feelings for music or preferences for food are different to moral matters.
But moral issues matter a whole lot more than feelings or preferences. I know we've been over this. I linked an article showing the reasoning for this with the example of liking noodles not racheting up to something that matters to the point someone is glad to not be born in Asian because they might have to like noodles.

Yeah, if morality was subjective, there would be disagreements. There are disagreements, morality is subjective. What's the problem here?

The problem is that moral disagreements point to someone being right and someone being wrong. To be able to determine this we need an objective basis.

No, how things work in the real world is subjective morality.

That cannot be true when people claim that when someone is morlaly wrong they are truthfully wrong beyond their own subjective views. That contradicts subjetcive morlaity.

It does not matter what people believe or claim

. What matters is what you can prove. Pointing to people and saying, "Look! They agree and they act like they agree!" is not an argument and it is not evidence. I act like my nightstand did something wrong when I stub my toe on it too.

Thats silly, you know your lampshade didnt actually do anything wrong.

There are a couple of points here. First subjective morality uses the same arguement but in reverse "arguement for differenc". Second part of proving objective morality is that people act objectively thats what moral realism is. Its the fact that they act out their true position about morality which shows that people in reality support objective morality. The evdience is that subjectivists become support for objective morality by acting objective rather than subjective. They become hostile witnesses.

1) If moral Realism is false, people would not live like moral facts exist.
2) People do live like moral facts exist.
3) Conclusion is that Moral Realism is true.

I don't

. Why won't you listen to me?

So when someone says "I think child abuse is OK, it makes me happy" you cannot tell them they are objectively wrong about that and must be mistaken.

 

[stevevw]

If life is not intrinsically valuable then we value something that is worthless, which is absurd. Your argument is not valid.

It isnt absurd if life truely is "INtrinsically valuable".

You aren't using "absurd" correctly. Taking innocent lives isn't nonsense, like trying to imagine a round square.

I don't get you.

 

[Moral Orel]

But that doesn't negate that there are moral truths. We do have feelings about moral issues but that doesnt mean moral issues are determined by feelings. Thats an assumption and fallacy.

It isn't an assumption or a fallacy. I have no idea what fallacy you think it is, but let's look at the facts.

For any other objective thing, we don't have an emotional response to an incorrect answer. We don't look at a 1st graders math test and read, "2+2=5" and then get angry that the test paper was wronged.

For everything we deem immoral we have an emotional response. As our emotional response strengthens, so too our sureness that the act was in fact wrong. People might quibble over stealing a loaf of bread is wrong or not. We imagine losing a loaf of bread we might need and feel a little bad, we imagine needing a loaf of bread and feeling a little good. But when we look at something like torturing an infant for fun, the emotional response is through the roof, and now we are 100% sure without a doubt this shouldn't ever happen! Our confidence in the truth directly correlates to the strength of our emotions on these matters.

The difference between the subjective preferences you talk about, and the things we call morals isn't the subjectivity. It's the fact that most things folk acknowledge as subjective don't involve other people. Once other people are involved, then we call it morality. We don't make rules about what food to eat because you eating what you like, even if I don't like it, has no effect on me. But if you commit an "immoral act" against someone else, I experience bad feelings as a result, so I am inclined to act to stop you from causing me to feel bad.

When I stub my toe, I curse the nightstand as though it wronged me. In retrospect, after thinking about it, I know the nightstand isn't responsible for my hurt toe. But not in the moment.

When I eat chocolate ice cream, I enjoy the taste, and I think "Chocolate ice cream is good!". But it isn't the ice cream that's good, it's my experience of it. When my wife tells me she hates it, I think that her taste is wrong. Again, I think that is objectively true in the moment. I have to think about these facts critically to realize that there's nothing objectively wrong with my wife or her tastes.

These are all solid reasons to critically examine our "intuitions" and determine whether there is anything driving our moral "reasoning" besides emotion. You abandoned your attempts to prove that "we ought to value life" for a new argument that I already beat before you posted it. You cannot logically justify any "ought". Everything you've posted, and honestly everything I've found in my own research on the topic, revolves around assuming our intuitions are accurate, and we have very good reason to doubt that.

 

[Moral Orel]

It isnt absurd if life truely is "INtrinsically valuable".

That's what you're trying to prove. You can't put that in your premises! That's Begging the Question fallacy.

I don't get you.

Is it logically possible to take an innocent person's life? Yes.
Is it physically possible to take an innocent person's life? Yes.

Is it logically possible to have a round square? NO
Is it physically possible to draw a round square? NO

Round squares are absurd because they are nonsense. Things we hate aren't absurd.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not saying that they have even asked people. They say it as a matter of their understanding of ethics and how people think this way about moral issues. Its really common sense.

Common sense is a expression without substance.

 

[durangodawood]

Just as there are several ideas what the objective morality contains, like ISIS, fundamental christians, catholics, hindu etc etc.

They all claim to have the "real objective" truth, explain how this is different?...

ISIS morality was so backward it was like an unstable isotope. It couldnt last without massive outside reinforcement.

I dont see how a mere claim to have objective truth should be given any weight at all.