Is there Objective Morality?

[FireDragon76]

So you would say there is nothing objective about the relation between the user's manual and the vehicle?

No. The users manual is just a legal document.

 

[zippy2006]

And there are other service manuals--not written by Ford--with slightly different instructions which if followed will give pretty much the same result. In general, a person with a reasonable understanding of automotive mechanics can use and maintain the vehicle successfully without a manual.

Eh. I think you're dodging. Your implicit idea that the creator does not understand the creation better than others is not at all convincing. The manufacturer will always be preferable to the local mechanic, the people who built the engine to those who just have general knowledge, etc. So far Kylie has given the most honest answer.

In other words at best one could say: "Yes the user's manual is objective and it is the most accurate guide to the car, but there are also other objective guides to the car which are less accurate." All the same, my crucial points that the user's manual is objective and ideal are both granted.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The most common argument against objective morality is made on the basis of moral disagreements. This common argument will no doubt permeate this thread. From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Moral Disagreements

The simplest and most common argument for moral skepticism is based on observed facts: Smart and well-meaning people disagree about the moral permissibility of abortion, affirmative action, capital punishment, active euthanasia, nuclear deterrence, welfare reform, civil rights, and so on. Many observers generalize to the conclusion that no moral claim is or would be accepted by everyone.
​

Yeah. Though I don't see why agreement would matter.

We could all agree that the sea is pink, that won't make it so.

However, all of these disagreements together still do not exclude the possibility of agreement on other moral beliefs.

Why would agreement matter?

Maybe nobody denies that it is morally wrong to torture babies just to get sexual pleasure.

Bad example. Who can openly disagree with that without significant harm to their social status? Anyone who disagrees with the statement simply won't tell you.

Pick a completely benign moral position.

Moreover, even if no moral belief is immune to disagreement, the fact that some people disagree with me does not prove that I am unjustified in holding my moral belief. I might be able to show them that I am right, or they might agree with me under ideal circumstances, where they are better informed, more thoughtful, less partial, and so on. Moral disagreements that are resolvable do not support moral skepticism, so any argument for moral skepticism from moral disagreement must show that moral disagreements are unresolvable on every issue. That will require a separate argument.

Disagreement isn't the cause of skepticism. Beliefs aren't facts. You have moral opinions, like everyone else. They require no justification

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure we do. We have ways to assign people to self-identified racial categories.

The idea that racial categories are self identified is hilarious.

Tell that to Rachel Dolezal.

And we have ways of measuring wealth or loan approvals or what have you. And it is an objective measure whether one correlates with the other to some level of statistical significance.

Correlation isn't causation. Besides, you gathered up racial data....pointing out that the data correlates to race doesn't explain the data.

 

[FireDragon76]

Eh. I think you're dodging. Your implicit idea that the creator does not understand the creation better than others is not at all convincing.

Why would a creator understand his or her creation better than others? It simply doesn't work out that way in the real world. Mechanics discover things all the time that eluded manufacturers.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would you say that the user's manual that Ford distributes with their vehicles is an objective measure of how to use the vehicle?

Isn't it possible that some "truth" that isn't addressed by the "user's manual" is related to the "good" way to behave in certain situations?

 

[ottawak]

Eh. I think you're dodging.

No, just making fun of your claim that the owner's manual you are trying to sell me is really an authentic manual published by the Ford company.

What I said before: Declaring a particular moral code to be objective doesn't make it one. In fact, all it really does is reveal an entirely subjective self-interest.

 

[zippy2006]

What I said before: Declaring a particular moral code to be objective doesn't make it one. In fact, all it really does is reveal an entirely subjective self-interest.

But this is just a strawman. No one has claimed that the declaration makes it so. In fact you seem to be contradicting yourself, for you seem to think that your declaration to the contrary defeats objectivity.

And of course it is patently false that declaring something to be objective "reveals an entirely subjective self-interest." It's no accident that you have failed to provide an argument for that absurd claim.

 

[zippy2006]

Why would a creator understand his or her creation better than others?

Because they created it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But this is just a strawman. No one has claimed that the declaration makes it so.

What does make it so?

 

[zippy2006]

What does make it so?

My favorite treatise on knowledge is the Theaetetus.

 

[ottawak]

But this is just a strawman. No one has claimed that the declaration makes it so. In fact you seem to be contradicting yourself, for you seem to think that your declaration to the contrary defeats objectivity.

I have no intention of defeating objectivity. I regard the existence of objective morality as unfalsifiable.

And of course it is patently false that declaring something to be objective "reveals an entirely subjective self-interest." It's no accident that you have failed to provide an argument for that absurd claim.

My objective morality is better than your objective morality.

 

[Chriliman]

I have no intention of defeating objectivity. I regard the existence of objective morality as unfalsifiable.

Logically, if objective morality exists then it could not be proven false.

My objective morality is better than your objective morality.

Great, those of us who’d like to know what’s objectively right and wrong, want to hear it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Logically, if objective morality exists then it could not be proven false.

False. Come on, man. You've around here long enough to know what falsifiable means. A stance, e.g., objective morality exists, is falsifiable if it makes predictions that could prove the stance false if they failed to occur.

@ottawak's statement is that (I hope I represent you here correctly) there is nothing that could occur in reality that would require one to give up the position "objective morality exists."

If this is true, I speak for myself here, then the position itself is of no consequence, no meaning.

If something is falsifiable, we can, at least in principle, determine whether it is true. (The stance makes a prediction that could turn out to be false.) If "objective morality exists" is UNfalsifiable, then we can't, even in principle, determine that it is true.

 

[Chriliman]

False. Come on, man. You've around here long enough to know what falsifiable means. A stance, e.g., objective morality exists, is falsifiable if it makes predictions that could prove the stance false if they failed to occur.

@ottawak's statement is that (I hope I represent you here correctly) there is nothing that could occur in reality that would require one to give up the position "objective morality exists."

If this is true, I speak for myself here, then the position itself is of no consequence, no meaning.

If something is falsifiable, we can, at least in principle, determine whether it is true. (The stance makes a prediction that could turn out to be false.) If "objective morality exists" is UNfalsifiable, then we can't, even in principle, determine that it is true.

You’re right, I was thinking falsifiable, but he said unfalsifiable. I still get confused by the idea of falsification. So for objective morality to be falsifiable, it has to possibly be shown to be false?

I could see a situation where a theory is falsifiable, but never proven false. I don’t like how we can’t say the theory is true, simply because we’re trying to prove that it’s false.

 

[ottawak]

Great, those of us who’d like to know what’s objectively right and wrong, want to hear it.

Wait until we see if Zippy gets the joke.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My favorite treatise on knowledge is the Theaetetus.

My favorite treatise on objective morality is "A Modest Proposal".

 

[FireDragon76]

My favorite treatise on objective morality is "A Modest Proposal".

That isn't philosophy, it's political satire...

 

[stevevw]

Declaring a particular moral code to be objective doesn't make it one. In fact, all it really does is reveal an entirely subjective self-interest.

I know this doesn't prove objective morality but I was speaking as far as Christain belief is concerned. Isn't Christianity based on there being one moral truth. I know its just a claim in the secular world but for Christians its not just a claim. It seems everything goes back to one truth.

As moral and rational beings we believe there are certain moral truths. This is a fundemental axion all civilisation is built on. Jesus is making the bold claim that His truth or way is the only truth. That the truth humans seek leads back to Christ. Its a challenge to us in that we seek truth and argue for truth as though there is one truth. Christ is sending out the claim that he is that truth we are looking for.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know this doesn't prove objective morality but I was speaking as far as Christain belief is concerned. Isn't Christianity based on there being one moral truth. I know its just a claim in the secular world but for Christians its not just a claim. It seems everything goes back to one truth.

It's a claim regardless of who makes it.

You wouldn't need any faith if it wasn't.

As moral and rational beings we believe there are certain moral truths.

That's not a rational argument, and I don't think I'd call us moral beings.

This is a fundemental axion all civilisation is built on.

Not really. I would say all civilization is built upon the advantage of cooperation.

Jesus is making the bold claim that His truth or way is the only truth.

Muhammad made some bold claims too.

That the truth humans seek leads back to Christ. Its a challenge to us in that we seek truth and argue for truth as though there is one truth.

There's only one reality....so there's only one truth.

Christ is sending out the claim that he is that truth we are looking for.

That's a weird claim. How does a person become an abstract concept like truth? Or justice? Or love?