Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

Ah, so you are claiming that I said, "Moral objectivity can not ever be true because it only has 60/40 support," because, in you words, "we can possibly find that in the future we may understand morality better like in science and find moral facts."

We can POSSIBLY find that we MAY find moral facts.

So you are deliberately misrepresenting me because of supposition and guesswork on your part.

Is it any wonder that I find it tiresome to try to discuss things with you?

How am I deliberately misrepresenting you. I never said you said
"we can possibly find that in the future we may understand morality better like in science and find moral facts."
I am saying I said the above and you dismissed it. So in dismissing this possibility you are also dismissing it ever happening.

 

[Kylie]

Thats because I am acting how someone who disagrees that subjective morality is true. I understand subjective morality, its not rocket science. Under subjective morality a persons preferences and emotions are what determines moral right and wrong.

In fact under subjective morality there are no moral rights and wrongs because its not about morals at all. The idea is humans mistakenly or live an illusion thinking morality is something seperate from our preferences and feelings. So we label what we prefer and feel as being morally good and bad when its not.

I am only explaining how preferences and emotions don't equate to how morality really works in real life so using this analogy is a false anology even before we try to work out if objective morality is true or not.

You even acknowledged this when you offered objective reasons why you think certain acts are morally wrong when arguing with others about what is morally right and wrong. There needs to be some determination beyond subjects ( and you can't use preferences for TV shows as it doesn't work).

The fact that you, I and everyone in society refers back to some objective which 9 times out of 10 is unjustifiably harming and violating humans is no coincidence of consensus. Its because its a reasonable and rational basis for measuring moral behaviour.

Once again remembering that there is no reasonableness and rationality to subjective feelings and preferences just as preferences or feelings about food of TV shows are not based on reasonableness or rationality because they are the psychological states of the subject.

You could ask why does someone prefer chocolate ice-cream. Because it tastes good. There is no rationality. Therefore why does someone like racism. Because it feels good, it makes me feel superior. There is no rationality. When you introduce rationality and reasonableness there needs to be some outside objective measure.

It seems to me that your whole position is based on, "If we insist on making things objective, how can there be subjective morality? There can't be, therefore morality is objective."

 

[Kylie]

How am I deliberately misrepresenting you. I never said you said
"we can possibly find that in the future we may understand morality better like in science and find moral facts."
I am saying I said the above and you dismissed it. So in dismissing this possibility you are also dismissing it ever happening.

You completely missed what I was saying. I was pointing out that you were dismissing me, and the only thing you had was a "MAYBE we COULD find that it MIGHT happen..."

 

[stevevw]

It seems to me that your whole position is based on, "If we insist on making things objective, how can there be subjective morality? There can't be, therefore morality is objective."

Its not about insisting anything but rather its about practicality. When it comes to determing morals we need an objective basis to measure things. Nothing else works in the real world. Like I said you can never argue your subjective preferences and feelings with others as there is no rational.

But using some sort of objective basis be it human wellbeing, don't do unnecessary harm, the Golden Rule. Both parties need a common basis to measure what is right and wrong beyond their subjective psychological states.

 

[stevevw]

You completely missed what I was saying. I was pointing out that you were dismissing me, and the only thing you had was a "MAYBE we COULD find that it MIGHT happen..."

But I was applying the same logic as you applied to science. So I was using your logic and applying it to morality.

In science we don't fully understand about some things like quantum physics, dark matter, how life and the universe came about and consciousness. But this doesn't mean that we may find out the science facts with more understanding in the future.

The same with objective morals. We may not understand what moral facts are exactly at the moment but it doesn't exclude that we may find out in the future. You were objecting to this same logic being applied to objective morals.

It wasn't about proving objective morals but knocking down the objection you used to refute that objective morals are different to science objectives.

 

[Kylie]

Its not about insisting anything but rather its about practicality. When it comes to determing morals we need an objective basis to measure things. Nothing else works in the real world. Like I said you can never argue your subjective preferences and feelings with others as there is no rational.

But using some sort of objective basis be it human wellbeing, don't do unnecessary harm, the Golden Rule. Both parties need a common basis to measure what is right and wrong beyond their subjective psychological states.

The universe doesn't arrange itself by what is practical.

It is PRACTICAL for us to consider the earth as still while the sun rises and sets above us, but that's not what is really happening.

And as for using some objective basis, your own example falls apart immediately. Who's to decide what counts as "unnecessary"? And having some standard that everyone agrees on doesn't mean it's an objective standard.

 

[Kylie]

But I was applying the same logic as you applied to science. So I was using your logic and applying it to morality.

In science we don't fully understand about some things like quantum physics, dark matter, how life and the universe came about and consciousness. But this doesn't mean that we may find out the science facts with more understanding in the future.

The same with objective morals. We may not understand what moral facts are exactly at the moment but it doesn't exclude that we may find out in the future. You were objecting to this same logic being applied to objective morals.

It wasn't about proving objective morals but knocking down the objection you used to refute that objective morals are different to science objectives.

If you want to apply the same principles to morality that we apply to science, how about you start by applying the principle of a clear and concise language with which to describe it.

I can present equations to describe the movement of planets, or the flow of electrons in a wire, or the chemical changes in a cell. Show me an equation for morality.

 

[stevevw]

The universe doesn't arrange itself by what is practical.

But humans do when it comes to morality.

It is PRACTICAL for us to consider the earth as still while the sun rises and sets above us, but that's not what is really happening.

Where talking about moral behaviour between people. How does this relate to that. Its practcial to have an objective basis outside the subjective to determine what is right and wrong behaviour. You have acknowledged this by the fact you use objective measures outside yourself to determine what is right and wrong.

And as for using some objective basis, your own example falls apart immediately. Who's to decide what counts as "unnecessary"?

No one decides, its measured against what is necessary for people to live together.

And having some standard that everyone agrees on doesn't mean it's an objective standard.

Yes it does when interacting with others. We went through this before. We don't just settle for any subjective view of what is right and wrong. We use a specific set of rationalized moral behaviour measured against an objective of behaviour that helps us live together.

Its not just any standard that everyone agrees with subjectively but a rationalised standard based on an objective which is what is best to help society live together. The assumption that whatever society agrees with is morally best cannot be a reliable standard for morality because agreement alone doesn't mean its whats best morally. There needs to be some objective basis to test that agreed moral to see if its really whats best for society.[/quote][/quote]

 

[stevevw]

If you want to apply the same principles to morality that we apply to science, how about you start by applying the principle of a clear and concise language with which to describe it.

I can present equations to describe the movement of planets, or the flow of electrons in a wire, or the chemical changes in a cell. Show me an equation for morality.

I already did. There are certain moral laws that we need to live as a society just like the legal, math or physical laws. Don't steal, rape and murder or do unnecessary harm to others are moral truths/laws because they help humans live together.

We can measure these laws by how they work in the world to allow society to live together and when they are breached they cause chaos and cause the breakdown so that we cannot live together. Certain laws/formulas allow Math and physics to work. Breach them and it doesn't work anymore and breaks down.

The same for morality but in this case rather than getting the wrong results about equations and the physical world we get wrong results for how to behave morally and society breaks down.

 

[stevevw]

You completely missed what I was saying. I was pointing out that you were dismissing me, and the only thing you had was a "MAYBE we COULD find that it MIGHT happen..."

"you were dismissing me." Dismissing you about what though. Your leaving this quite open. The only reason I used the term "MAYBE we COULD find that it MIGHT happen" was in response to you saying that moral objectives don't work like science because we have a big majoirty ( 95%) agreeing with science facts and we don't see that with moral facts.

I said that just because we don't have big moral majoirty now that "MAYBE we COULD find that it MIGHT happen" in the future just like how it has been the case with science throughout history. So I was only using that term specifically to knock down an objection you made that moral facts can never have a big majority like science.

 

[Kylie]

But humans do when it comes to morality.

Irrelevant. What humans do is not the determining factor for what is objective or not.

Where talking about moral behaviour between people. How does this relate to that. Its practcial to have an objective basis outside the subjective to determine what is right and wrong behaviour. You have acknowledged this by the fact you use objective measures outside yourself to determine what is right and wrong.

It is practical to act as though there is some objective standard, but that doesn't mean that there is one.

We may act like some particular standard is objective when it comes to morality, but that doesn't actually make it objective.

No one decides, its measured against what is necessary for people to live together.

But that isn't a black/white issue, is it?

Yes it does when interacting with others. We went through this before. We don't just settle for any subjective view of what is right and wrong. We use a specific set of rationalized moral behaviour measured against an objective of behaviour that helps us live together.

Its not just any standard that everyone agrees with subjectively but a rationalised standard based on an objective which is what is best to help society live together. The assumption that whatever society agrees with is morally best cannot be a reliable standard for morality because agreement alone doesn't mean its whats best morally. There needs to be some objective basis to test that agreed moral to see if its really whats best for society.

Once again, just because we ACT like something is an objective standard, doesn't mean it actually IS an objective standard.

 

[Kylie]

I already did. There are certain moral laws that we need to live as a society just like the legal, math or physical laws. Don't steal, rape and murder or do unnecessary harm to others are moral truths/laws because they help humans live together.

We can measure these laws by how they work in the world to allow society to live together and when they are breached they cause chaos and cause the breakdown so that we cannot live together. Certain laws/formulas allow Math and physics to work. Breach them and it doesn't work anymore and breaks down.

The same for morality but in this case rather than getting the wrong results about equations and the physical world we get wrong results for how to behave morally and society breaks down.

I wish you'd stop posting the same flawed argument again and again.

Your unsupported claim of whatever moral viewpoint you are trying to pretend is objective is NOT the same as, for example, the logical claim that something can't be P and NOT-P at the same time.

 

[Kylie]

"you were dismissing me." Dismissing you about what though. Your leaving this quite open. The only reason I used the term "MAYBE we COULD find that it MIGHT happen" was in response to you saying that moral objectives don't work like science because we have a big majoirty ( 95%) agreeing with science facts and we don't see that with moral facts.

I said that just because we don't have big moral majoirty now that "MAYBE we COULD find that it MIGHT happen" in the future just like how it has been the case with science throughout history. So I was only using that term specifically to knock down an objection you made that moral facts can never have a big majority like science.

Yeah. MAYBE it might happen. MAYBE it won't. You have no evidence either way.

The guy who proposes some whacky new scientific theory that leaves all the actual scientists laughing at him would storm off saying, "Well, they laughed at Galileo too, and he was proven to be right!" However, he fails to realise that they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

In short, just because MAYBE you could be proven right doesn't mean that you will. Doesn't even mean there's a good chance you'll be proven right either. And you're certainly not going to come close to convincing me until you have some better arguments than the appeals to emotion you've been producing so far.

 

[FireDragon76]

Its not about insisting anything but rather its about practicality. When it comes to determing morals we need an objective basis to measure things. Nothing else works in the real world. Like I said you can never argue your subjective preferences and feelings with others as there is no rational.

You may feel we need an objective, unquestionable basis for morality, but hundreds of millions of other people disagree, and seem to get along just fine without one.

But using some sort of objective basis be it human wellbeing, don't do unnecessary harm, the Golden Rule. Both parties need a common basis to measure what is right and wrong beyond their subjective psychological states.

Why does the Golden Rule need to be grounded in revelation, why not in human experience as axiomatically true or useful? Lots of societies, many non-Christian, have similar rules.

 

[stevevw]

Irrelevant. What humans do is not the determining factor for what is objective or not.

But you use the same logic when claiming what humans do as far as agreeing about morality because they have been conditioned determines morality as subjective.

It is practical to act as though there is some objective standard, but that doesn't mean that there is one.

Of course it does. You and I just acknowledged it in using an objective basis to measure what behaviour is acceptable or not that helps humans live together and flourish. All objective means is that there is some basis for measuring what is right and wrong behaviour outside the subject. When we refer to "what is best for humans to live together and fourish" we are using an objective basis outside the subject.

We may act like some particular standard is objective when it comes to morality, but that doesn't actually make it objective.

Why its still meets the requirements of what objective means which is "a measurement we can use outside of the subject for measuring something".

But that isn't a black/white issue, is it?

It is for most morals. Don't murder, rape, steal, descriminate, sexually harass, ect. They all prevent people from living together if allowed to happen without laws against them.

Just because there are more complex issues that need more understanding about how they affect society and make it harder to live together doesn't mean there is no truth to find. But just the core moral truths like "don't murder, rape, steal, descriminate, sexually harass", is a good start.

Once again, just because we ACT like something is an objective standard, doesn't mean it actually IS an objective standard.

But its not blindly acting like something is true and real. Its acting that way for a good objective reason we have rationally determined as correct. A rational objective reason you, I and most people use as a measure to prove to others what is the right moral behaviour to live together.

Otherwise you would have to say humans are decieving themselves and living some delusion. We then couldn't trust our own rationality anymore for determining anything as it could be a delusion.

That's unreal as we know that we are not deluding ourselves as we live that reality everyday and use that objective reason to live together. So we know its not a delusion because its practical and works.

 

[stevevw]

You may feel we need an objective, unquestionable basis for morality, but hundreds of millions of other people disagree, and seem to get along just fine without one.

I don't know about that. As mentioned we determine what is best moral behaviour according to whether it allows humans to live together and flourish.

We can say there is a core set of moral truths like "don't murder, rape, steal, sexually harass, descriminate, do unecessary harm ect ect that most people agree with because of a good rational objective measure to determine things rather than subjective thinking.

Anyone who disagrees can be shown to be objectively wrong because any individual or society who practcies these immoral acts will not survive and breakdown in one way or another. Its evident in that we can use that objective measure outside subjective thinking (it helps humans get along and flourish) to prove they are wrong.

Why does the Golden Rule need to be grounded in revelation, why not in human experience as axiomatically true or useful? Lots of societies, many non-Christian, have similar rules.

I am not saying the Golden Rule is only a Christian rule. I am saying that its like a natural law/principle that all humans know in many different forms. Its a practcial objective measure that works in reality.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah. MAYBE it might happen. MAYBE it won't. You have no evidence either way.

The guy who proposes some whacky new scientific theory that leaves all the actual scientists laughing at him would storm off saying, "Well, they laughed at Galileo too, and he was proven to be right!" However, he fails to realise that they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

In short, just because MAYBE you could be proven right doesn't mean that you will. Doesn't even mean there's a good chance you'll be proven right either. And you're certainly not going to come close to convincing me until you have some better arguments than the appeals to emotion you've been producing so far.

Your missing the whole point of what you were objecting too. As I said it wasn;t about proving objective morality but knocking down your objection that moral facts can never be found because there is not the same support for objective morals that science facts enjoy.

In other words you were saying there wasn't even a "MAYBE" moral facts can be found in the first place.

 

[stevevw]

I wish you'd stop posting the same flawed argument again and again.

Your unsupported claim of whatever moral viewpoint you are trying to pretend is objective is NOT the same as, for example, the logical claim that something can't be P and NOT-P at the same time.

Can you elaborate on this as I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Kylie]

But you use the same logic when claiming what humans do as far as agreeing about morality because they have been conditioned determines morality as subjective.

So?

Humans agree on morality for the most part because those viewpoints are the ones that help us survive in social groups.

That does not mean that those viewpoints are objectively true.

Of course it does. You and I just acknowledged it in using an objective basis to measure what behaviour is acceptable or not that helps humans live together and flourish. All objective means is that there is some basis for measuring what is right and wrong behaviour outside the subject. When we refer to "what is best for humans to live together and fourish" we are using an objective basis outside the subject.

Only if you can objectively define what is "best."

I suspect you can't.

Why its still meets the requirements of what objective means which is "a measurement we can use outside of the subject for measuring something".

It's not objective because if you get someone who has no idea about that standard to come up with their own standard, they can get something completely different.

It is for most morals. Don't murder, rape, steal, descriminate, sexually harass, ect. They all prevent people from living together if allowed to happen without laws against them.

Just because there are more complex issues that need more understanding about how they affect society and make it harder to live together doesn't mean there is no truth to find. But just the core moral truths like "don't murder, rape, steal, descriminate, sexually harass", is a good start.

Oh, running back to the extreme examples to make your point once again.

But its not blindly acting like something is true and real. Its acting that way for a good objective reason we have rationally determined as correct. A rational objective reason you, I and most people use as a measure to prove to others what is the right moral behaviour to live together.

No it's not.

We act like the earth is station are the sun circles above us, but that doesn't mean that the Earth is objectively still.

 

[Kylie]

Your missing the whole point of what you were objecting too. As I said it wasn;t about proving objective morality but knocking down your objection that moral facts can never be found because there is not the same support for objective morals that science facts enjoy.

In other words you were saying there wasn't even a "MAYBE" moral facts can be found in the first place.

I'm pointing out that if your argument has to depend on a "maybe" then your position is incredibly weak.