Is there Objective Morality?

[Aussie Pete]

Offtopic, it's horrific how many pastors or preachers equate the two of those things, misleading millions. It was immoral of those who mistaught them, to not bother to seek real meanings of Scripture.

The whole point of the gospel is the Kingdom of God. What is immoral is to water down the gospel to one of "invite Jesus into your heart". God commands sinners to repent. It's not a whim or a choice like what sports team to support. It is eternal life or death.

1 Corinthians 6:9 can be misused, but people need to know that God's primary purpose is to bring His kingdom into being with Lord Jesus as king of Kings and Lord of Lords. Christians who fail to enter God's kingdom are missing out on eternal blessings and also on God's best in this life. It's the only opportunity we get to set ourselves up for eternity.

 

[Kylie]

In philosophy it is eminently important to be able to construct contradictory propositions. Those who can't construct, identify, or handle contradictory propositions tend to be sloppy thinkers. They always object without saying why, giving vague reasons about "shades of grey" and "complexity."

For example, you have been arguing with Steve about rape. We could construct a contradictory pair regarding rape:

a. Rape is always wrong.
b. Rape is not always wrong.​

Faced with this contradictory pair, the intellectually rigorous person must choose one option, and only one. They cannot give excuses about "shades of grey." In this case, there are no such shades. Either (a) is true or else (b) is true, and there is no middle ground.

This seems rather useless to me. Allow me to present an analogy. Let's say we have a large barrel and in it are a million ping pong balls, labelled from 1 to 1,000,000. If I take a ball at random, I can say it fits into a similar contradictory pair. The ball is Ball #1, or it is not Ball #1.

However, if I tell you that the ball is not ball #1, then it leaves you with very little information that is actually useful. It could, after all, be any of the 999,999 other balls. Likewise, if we say some particular moral situation is not always wrong (and I'm not going to use your example, since it's yet ANOTHER example of people resorting to extreme cases to prove their point), then we still can't say if there are many cases where it is not wrong, or only a few cases where it is not wrong.

You are not presenting a tight contradictory pair. Faced with such a question, the intellectually rigorous person would interpret your question according to the qualifier "ceteris paribus". On that interpretation I would answer "Yes, it is morally wrong to steal."

But we could instead present a contradictory pair, or even the square of opposition:

• It is always objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. (false)
• It is sometimes objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. (true)
• It is never objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. (false)
• It is sometimes not objectively morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. (true)

So, how do you suggest we determine when it is and isn't morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread. Please present a way that all people will agree on (since if you can't, that shows that any such method is subjective).

 

[Kylie]

As you have presented this at it reads yes it is wrong to steal a loaf of bread.

But remember I said earlier to you that objective morality can accommodate circumstances. I gave the example of the person lying to hide the Jews from the Nazi's. Sometimes moral values conflict with each other.

But objective morality is about finding the best way to behave morally in moral situations under the circumstances. So each and every moral situation will have an objective moral that has been determined independently from subjective views. That may mean that it is morally right to lie, steal or kill sometimes because a greater moral wrong would be done.

As opposed to absolute morality where it is always wrong regardless of circumstances.

But when we determine the best moral behaviour for a particular situation, we are basing that off our own values, aren't we? As such, any moral decisions are based on our SUBJECTIVE views and thus the moral decisions we make are SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE!

 

[zippy2006]

This seems rather useless to me.

There are some people who won’t ever give a straight answer, and instead will talk about “shades of grey” until they are blue in the face. My advice when dealing with such a person is to leverage contradictory pairs.

The ball is Ball #1, or it is not Ball #1.

That’s one way to do it. A better way would be, “The ball is less than 500,000, or it is not less than 500,000.”

...then we still can't say if there are many cases where it is not wrong, or only a few cases where it is not wrong.

Right, but at least we got the wishy-washy person to say something, and that is a great victory. These people will do everything they can to continue saying nothing at all.

So, how do you suggest we determine when it is and isn't morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread.

We've already done this. See #368.

Please present a way that all people will agree on (since if you can't, that shows that any such method is subjective).

You already failed to support this strange claim four months ago. It began when Orel questioned a related falsehood in post #226.

 

[stevevw]

You are not explaining a system for working situations out which is why you are saying these terrible things.

Flaunting horrible crimes is distressing to people who suffer because of them.

You'll get nowhere if all you do is parrot the airport casuistry books.

Ok so lets use the famous situation of a person lying to the Nazi's to save the Jews hiding in the basement. Does the person lie to save the Jews or tell the truth and send humans to their death.

What should the person do. Are you saying that lying to the Nazi's to save the Jews is not the morally objective thing to do under the circumstances.

 

[stevevw]

But when we determine the best moral behaviour for a particular situation, we are basing that off our own values, aren't we? As such, any moral decisions are based on our SUBJECTIVE views and thus the moral decisions we make are SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE!

So therefore someone with the subjective view that they should not lie and therefore help murder the Jews is also ok, someone who thinks its subjectively ok to then join the Nazi party and help kill the Jews is OK as well because there is no objective way to determine what is the best way to behave and subjective views are never wrong.

Because morals will inevitably conflict sometimes we have to be able to find the best way to act morally in those situations. Just like I used for the difference between 1st degree murder and killing in self defence. There is an obvious difference of intent. 1st degree murderer has intention to kill in cold blood as opposed to a person defending a small child or family about to be killed by a crazed gunman has intention to save lives.

We can rationally see the difference between these acts and they justifiably need to be judged differerntly. This is not subjectively determined because we can reason the difference between intention and non-intention. So sometimes killing is the morally right thing to do. Otherwise if we allowed an innocent/s to be killed we are actually culpable ourselves of allowing someone to die. So our moral intention is to save life.

So it is with hiding the Jews from the Nazi's. If we give up the Jews we are aiding in the deaths of the Jews. So the morally right thing to do is to lie to save the Jews. Its rationally determined and not subjective because our intent is to save human life. We see that there is a good rational reason why we should save the Jews. Afterall why hide them in the first place.

 

[Kylie]

There are some people who won’t ever give a straight answer, and instead will talk about “shades of grey” until they are blue in the face. My advice when dealing with such a person is to leverage contradictory pairs.

It's hard to avoid talking about shades of grey when so much of the real world is painted in those shades.

That’s one way to do it. A better way would be, “The ball is less than 500,000, or it is not less than 500,000.”

Except your original question wasn't of that nature.

In my ball example, the answer to this question would eliminate half of the possibilities, no matter which way it is answered.

However, the pair you gave about morality, which I (avoiding the extreme example you chose to use) took as "This action is always morally wrong" and "This action is not always morally wrong," then half the possibilities are not eliminated. One answer will eliminate just a single possibility, and the other answer will eliminate all but one possibility.

So the two situations are not the same.

Right, but at least we got the wishy-washy person to say something, and that is a great victory. These people will do everything they can to continue saying nothing at all.

So you think something is accomplished, even if nothing useful comes from it?

If your house is on fire, do you start trimming your toenails? If someone says, "Zippy, why did you trim your toenails when the house was on fire?" would you say, "Hey, at least I was doing SOMETHING!"

We've already done this. See #368.

And I answered that in post 374.

In any case, your answer seems to be, "It depends on all the other factors," which makes it sound like a subjective issue to me.

You already failed to support this strange claim four months ago. It began when Orel questioned a related falsehood in post #226.

I'm not making a claim.

I'm asking you to support a claim YOU have made.

 

[Kylie]

So therefore someone with the subjective view that they should not lie and therefore help murder the Jews is also OK as a personal subjective view can never be wrong as there is no objective basis to measure whats right and wrong.

From that person's point of view, yes.

But my point of view will not be the same.

That also means someone who thinks its subjectively ok to then join the Nazi party and help gathering Jews to kill is OK as well.

From that person's point of view, yes.

But my point of view will not be the same.

This is not the first time I have given you this answer. Since you obviously don't care to pay attention, I have to ask whether it is even worthwhile continue to try to discuss this with you.

Because morals will inevitably conflict sometimes we have to be able to find the best way to act morally in those situations. Just like I used for the difference between 1st degree murder and killing in self defence. There is an obvious difference of intent. A 1st degree murderer has intention to kill in cold blood as opposed to a person defending a small child or family about to be killed by a crazed gunman.

We can rationally see the difference between these acts and they justifiably need to be judged differerntly. This is not subjectively determined because we can reason the difference between iuntention and non-intention. So sometimes killing is the morally right thing to do. Otherwise if we allowed an innocent/s to be killed we are actually culpable ourselves of allowing someone to die.

So it is with hiding the Jews from the Nazi's. If we give up the Jews we are aiding in the deaths of the Jews. So the morally right thing to do is to lie to save the Jews. Its rationally determined and not subjective because our intent is to save human life. We see that there is a good rational reason why we should save the Jews.

How can morals conflict if they are objective?

 

[Amittai]

... Are you saying that lying to the Nazi's to save the Jews is not the morally objective thing to do under the circumstances.

I've said over and over, for the attn. of the OP and all readers worldwide, I do the duty of all human beings, every day, of no religion, to use my agency, competence and faculty of degrees of inference in all matters, to know principle.

My mother is last known (we've figured out) to have last seen the brother she didn't tell us she had, when she was 16 and he was 12. We have figured out their parents thought it was safer, overall, to split up.

She knew what the principle of principle was and is, and it's about time christians should discover the principle of principle.

Good was built up over centuries on the basis of principle - much of it with the help of benevolent agnostics incidentally.

More forethought strengthened principle and didn't weaken it. That is how we shall know quicker and more surely, when we are on the spot.

I'm making the case for an overview. The Nazis showed enough of their dishonesty for onlookers to infer, in 1932. Nazis were the ones that said we don't harm these people or those people.

The cessation of inferring by christians doesn't do religions like christianity any good.

I applaud the protest of the children of Highgate School and the agnostic students of Fredonia State University.

I remember what was said officially to my class at school by teachers in the Jimmy Savile days.

 

[Amittai]

... our own values, aren't we? As such, any moral decisions are based on our SUBJECTIVE views and thus the moral decisions we make are SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE!

Since when were human beings not allowed to pool insights?

 

[stevevw]

From that person's point of view, yes.

But my point of view will not be the same.

So is the other persons point of view wrong in any truthful way beyond the subjects involved even though its abhorrent.

From that person's point of view, yes.

But my point of view will not be the same.

This is not the first time I have given you this answer. Since you obviously don't care to pay attention, I have to ask whether it is even worthwhile continue to try to discuss this with you.

Yes I know and we both keep repeating our objections. So we obviously need to explain a bit more so that we fully understand what we mean. I understand perfectly what you are saying, that you have your view and that other people have their view and your view is not the same as others and that does not mean you have to like or go along with their view.

My question has been consistent. That even though you don't have to like or go along with opposing views that you may find abhorrent under a subjective moral system you still need to tolerate those abhorrent views for the simple fact that they can never be determined as being wrong in the world if there is no objective basis.

Agreement or conditioning cannot help to justify one view over another as agreement and conditioning don't garentee or justify any specific moral claim. We can be conditioned or agree to immoral acts as our subjective thinking can be skewed by biases, personal gain, selfish motives. Humans are fallible in that regard. So your arguement doesn't stand up.

How can morals conflict if they are objective?

Because your thinking that objective means absolute morals and can never change is a wrong assumption in the first place and therefore leads you a false conclusion.

All "objective morality" means is that for each and every moral situation there will be a moral truth that has been determined independent of the subject. If the moral truth is rational then it needs to be reasoned in the circumstances. To not take the circumstances into consideration would lead to false truths.

The important thing is that in each circumstance an independent determination should be reached thats beyond the subjective thinking and thats all objective morality means. As opposed to "absolute morality" which is a universal truth that never changes regardless of circumstances. So its never wrong to lie full stop even if that leads to an even greater moral wrong of killing many.

 

[stevevw]

I've said over and over, for the attn. of the OP and all readers worldwide, I do the duty of all human beings, every day, of no religion, to use my agency, competence and faculty of degrees of inference in all matters, to know principle.

My mother is last known (we've figured out) to have last seen the brother she didn't tell us she had, when she was 16 and he was 12. We have figured out their parents thought it was safer, overall, to split up.

She knew what the principle of principle was and is, and it's about time christians should discover the principle of principle.

Good was built up over centuries on the basis of principle - much of it with the help of benevolent agnostics incidentally.

More forethought strengthened principle and didn't weaken it. That is how we shall know quicker and more surely, when we are on the spot.

I'm making the case for an overview. The Nazis showed enough of their dishonesty for onlookers to infer, in 1932. Nazis were the ones that said we don't harm these people or those people.

The cessation of inferring by christians doesn't do religions like christianity any good.

I applaud the protest of the children of Highgate School and the agnostic students of Fredonia State University.

I remember what was said officially to my class at school by teachers in the Jimmy Savile days.

It seems more like you have an objection that religion is not the only way to know morality and if thats the case I agree. In fact I would go as far as to say that religion can skew moral truth because it can be used as a tool to control others and therefore is more about self interest rather than truth.

But I am interested in a direct answer to the question that lying can sometimes be the objectively best way to act morally given the circumstance. An important destinction needs to be made here. It is the circumstance that dictates the rational for determining the moral and not the subject.

Using circumstances to determine what is right morally which may allow lying in rare situations doesn't open the door for personal opinions. IT still restricts what option is best morally to an independent determination beyond the subject.

 

[zippy2006]

Except your original question wasn't of that nature.

In my ball example, the answer to this question would eliminate half of the possibilities, no matter which way it is answered.

However, the pair you gave about morality, which I (avoiding the extreme example you chose to use) took as "This action is always morally wrong" and "This action is not always morally wrong," then half the possibilities are not eliminated. One answer will eliminate just a single possibility, and the other answer will eliminate all but one possibility.

So the two situations are not the same.

The ball example does eliminate more possibilities, and that is a helpful thing, but it is not my primary goal. The primary goal is to concretize what exactly the wishy-washy person believes. In the ball case we can hit two birds with one stone. In the rape case we can't, and therefore we focus on the most important bird. The choice in the ball case is between a small bit of information and a large bit of information. The choice in the rape base is between a small bit of information and no information at all.

So you think something is accomplished, even if nothing useful comes from it?

A prerequisite for a conversation is for each party to say meaningful things. If someone is saying some small meaningful thing, then this is better than them saying nothing at all. If they are just going to talk about "shades of grey," then nothing at all is really being said, and it would be better to abandon the non-conversation.

 

[stevevw]

If the goal isn't the goal we should have, then you can't truthfully say we should work towards that goal.

So if it isn't true that "We should debate to find the truth" then it isn't true that "We should say true things in a debate".

You can certainly claim that making true statements in an argument is necessary for arriving at true conclusions, sure. But if you want to prove "We should make true statements" is true, then first you need to prove "We should seek to arrive at true conclusions in a debate" is true first.

I'm not saying that the "truth" is not the aim but that the process in determining the "truth" is what is important.

Its more a case of how our cognition works in determining truth. We are presented with conflicting beliefs and knowledge. The process itself is about valuing differences in truth and knowledge. Its natural to ask which truth and knowledge is right or best in the circumstance, which option/way we should go with.

Therefore we make determinations about proper and improper beliefs and knowledge. We tell others what is proper and improper belief and knowledge. This is an involuntary process as it comes up in our natural thinking on these matters.

It naturally leads to making norms about what cognitive states are justified and unjustified, rational or irrational.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not saying that the "truth" is not the aim but that the process in determining the "truth" is what is important.

Prove this is true:

"We should be seeking true conclusions."​

Or this is not justified:

"We should be honest."​

 

[stevevw]

Prove this is true:

"We should be seeking true conclusions."​

Or this is not justified:

"We should be honest."​

There are a few different answers to this. Epistemology has really only become more popular in the last 30 years. As knowledge and belief are cognitions they are more about proper function similar to proper function of other systems like the digestive system. So in some ways its not a voluntary process. You have to eat just like you have to think. We are rational beings and so rationality is a default thinking state.

It leads us to options about knowledge and beliefs as to whther they are proper or improper and which states we "should" have for proper thinking. Faced with the option as rational beings we know proper and justified knowledge and beliefs are the best cognitive state to be in as opposed to other cognitive states. We have the experiential evidence and practical application of how it works and that it works.

Therefore we make norms about knowledge and beliefs based on the evdience, justified beliefs and we criticize those who are sloppy/iresponsible knowers and make "shoulds and oughts" about what is proper/improper knowedge and belief. This can be similar to the law with intention, culpability and neligence.

Another angle is that knowledge is a repository and corrupt/fake knowledge poisons the quality/value well of knowledge. So we value proper and justified knowledge and beliefs and make norms based on this over other ways of knowing. Therefore we should not poison the well of knowledge as it is valuable because it poisons knowledge and this has practcial implications.

There are other ways that we can argue that we "should" seek proper and justified knowledge and beliefs but I will leave it at this.

The point is you are using the same norms to prove me wrong. We can say there is no proof that we "should" persue truth in knowledge and belief but we do. We live and its part of being human whether we like it or know it or not. Its different to ethics as its cognition which doesnt directly involve actions but states of mind. Otherwise we are negating our natural state and we know we should not do this for no good reason.

The alternative is you cannot prove me wrong without these epistemic norms. Otherwise I can just say that there is no "should" in how we can determine truth, facts, about knowledge and belief so whatever method you are using to prove your arguement becomes invalid as there is no way to prove whether my beliefs or knowledge is proper or improper.

It has practical implications. We would have to end the debate and be none the wiser. To persist is silly and contradictory. Why persist in an illusion or mistake of thinking.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are a few different answers to this. Epistemology has really only become more popular in the last 30 years. As knowledge and belief are cognitions they are more about proper function similar to proper function of other systems like the digestive system. So in some ways its not a voluntary process. You have to eat just like you have to think. We are rational beings and so rationality is a default thinking state.

It leads us to options about knowledge and beliefs as to whther they are proper or improper and which states we "should" have for proper thinking. Faced with the option as rational beings we know proper and justified knowledge and beliefs are the best cognitive state to be in as opposed to other cognitive states. We have the experiential evidence and practical application of how it works and that it works.

Therefore we make norms about knowledge and beliefs based on the evdience, justified beliefs and we criticize those who are sloppy/iresponsible knowers and make "shoulds and oughts" about what is proper/improper knowedge and belief. This can be similar to the law with intention, culpability and neligence.

Another angle is that knowledge is a repository and corrupt/fake knowledge poisons the quality/value well of knowledge. So we value proper and justified knowledge and beliefs and make norms based on this over other ways of knowing. Therefore we should not poison the well of knowledge as it is valuable because it poisons knowledge and this has practcial implications.

There are other ways that we can argue that we "should" seek proper and justified knowledge and beliefs but I will leave it at this.

The point is you are using the same norms to prove me wrong. We can say there is no proof that we "should" persue truth in knowledge and belief but we do. We live and its part of being human whether we like it or know it or not. Its different to ethics as its cognition which doesnt directly involve actions but states of mind. Otherwise we are negating our natural state and we know we should not do this for no good reason.

The alternative is you cannot prove me wrong without these epistemic norms. Otherwise I can just say that there is no "should" in how we can determine truth, facts, about knowledge and belief so whatever method you are using to prove your arguement becomes invalid as there is no way to prove whether my beliefs or knowledge is proper or improper.

It has practical implications. We would have to end the debate and be none the wiser. To persist is silly and contradictory. Why persist in an illusion or mistake of thinking.

Pick whatever you think is the strongest argument and clean it up and organize it. I'm not going through this post line by line to point out all the errors. If you can't write your argument in any kind of formal formatting, at least write out your reasoning as a list.

 

[Kylie]

Since when were human beings not allowed to pool insights?

That doesn't turn the subjective into the objective.

 

[Kylie]

So is the other persons point of view wrong in any truthful way beyond the subjects involved even though its abhorrent.

Abhorrent is a subjective thing, isn't it?

You really gotta stop presenting subjective things as though they are objective.

Yes I know and we both keep repeating our objections. So we obviously need to explain a bit more so that we fully understand what we mean. I understand perfectly what you are saying, that you have your view and that other people have their view and your view is not the same as others and that does not mean you have to like or go along with their view.

My question has been consistent. That even though you don't have to like or go along with opposing views that you may find abhorrent under a subjective moral system you still need to tolerate those abhorrent views for the simple fact that they can never be determined as being wrong in the world if there is no objective basis.

Agreement or conditioning cannot help to justify one view over another as agreement and conditioning don't garentee or justify any specific moral claim. We can be conditioned or agree to immoral acts as our subjective thinking can be skewed by biases, personal gain, selfish motives. Humans are fallible in that regard. So your arguement doesn't stand up.

No, I do NOT need to tolerate a differing view.

I think that racism is utterly reprehensible.

A person who thinks that black people are inferior will think their view is perfectly justified.

Yet somehow you think that I am supposed to say, "Well, I disagree with your view, but you are just as entitled to it as I am to my view, so I guess I have to let you treat black people like garbage." How in the world did you reach that conclusion? Absolutely I am NOT going to do that.

Because your thinking that objective means absolute morals and can never change is a wrong assumption in the first place and therefore leads you a false conclusion.

All "objective morality" means is that for each and every moral situation there will be a moral truth that has been determined independent of the subject. If the moral truth is rational then it needs to be reasoned in the circumstances. To not take the circumstances into consideration would lead to false truths.

The important thing is that in each circumstance an independent determination should be reached thats beyond the subjective thinking and thats all objective morality means. As opposed to "absolute morality" which is a universal truth that never changes regardless of circumstances. So its never wrong to lie full stop even if that leads to an even greater moral wrong of killing many.

You argument would be so much more convincing if you could actually SHOW US how to determine this moral truth. You've completely failed at this every single time.

You can't show that there is a moral truth to any situation that all people will agree on.

And you're nowhere near showing us how to determine that alleged truth.

 

[Kylie]

The ball example does eliminate more possibilities, and that is a helpful thing, but it is not my primary goal. The primary goal is to concretize what exactly the wishy-washy person believes. In the ball case we can hit two birds with one stone. In the rape case we can't, and therefore we focus on the most important bird. The choice in the ball case is between a small bit of information and a large bit of information. The choice in the rape base is between a small bit of information and no information at all.

So your analogy doesn't really apply, does it?

And how do you decide which is the most important bit of information without resorting to a subjective opinion?

A prerequisite for a conversation is for each party to say meaningful things. If someone is saying some small meaningful thing, then this is better than them saying nothing at all. If they are just going to talk about "shades of grey," then nothing at all is really being said, and it would be better to abandon the non-conversation.

The existence of shades of grey does not preclude the existence of meaningful statements.