The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[quatona]

Well when you have to redefine the idea of "stealing" so completely to find an example, then it speaks to my point rather than yours.

The idea of "stealing" is "taking something wrongly". That there are various ideas (and some extremely differing from each other) about what constitutes "wrongly" isn´t redefining the word - it is evidence of the fact that people disagree in their values, their criteria and their conclusions - without disagreeing about the facts.

 

[durangodawood]

The idea of "stealing" is "taking something wrongly". That there are various ideas (and some extremely differing from each other) about what constitutes "wrongly" isn´t redefining the word - it is evidence of the fact that people disagree in their values, their criteria and their conclusions - without disagreeing about the facts.

Here's the first definition of stealing I come across in a basic dictionary search:
"1. take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

I think you overstate the differences here. My sense is that around the globe almost everyone would describe examples of stealing that look quite recognizable to you and I. Maybe I'm wrong? Unfortunately its rather difficult to demonstrate without performing an enormous cross cultural survey. I'm reflecting back on half a lifetime of exposure to literature and other media from quite a range of cultures. Maybe your experience has been really different.

 

[stevevw]

My point is, if lying is OBJECTIVLY wrong, there can be no compromises, or exceptions in certain situations. The compromises and exceptions are made via personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances, which would make it subjective.
How are you defining the difference between Objective vs Subjective when applied to morality?

The easy way to overcome that is to accommodate the compromises. So "lying is always wrong except if it leads to a greater moral harm to another" is a moral objective.

I think subjective morality lends support for objective morality because if two people have different subjective views of a moral and are comparing those differences, on what basis are they using to make the comparison. So in that sense the very existence of subjective morals implies that an objective morality standard exists.

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course morals are involved in complex policy matters.

But there's so many other issues flying around such topics that the strictly moral questions get confounded.

Yeah; but right now we aren’t talking about the other issues, we’re talking about morals. In order for morality to be objective, there must be a base. Let’s assume for the sake of conversation that this moral base is the Christian God as described in the Bible.

If when asked if lying is wrong, you could look in the Bible and point to where it says do not lie. If asked, must I tell the truth to an evil man who I know is going to kill an innocent person?

You should then be able to look in the Bible and point to whatever exceptions are allowed for lying in the Bible. If no exception is made, that would mean you must tell the truth even if it leads to the murder of an innocent person.

But nobody does this. I asked various times if the year were 1938 in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo came to your door asking if you had any Jews in the house, would you tell the truth if you knew some were hiding in your house, and they always make exceptions because they subjectively deem the Gestapo evil and are willing to make an exception in such cases. When you are able to break the rules based on personal beliefs, extenuating circumstances, or perceptions that is subjectivity, not objectivity.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes but there are certain morals that are common to almost all societies. Such as you shall not steal from your group, you shall not murder members of your group, you shall not steal wives from your group, you shall not lie to your group and etc.

Yeah we can always come up with moral examples where everybody agrees, but that isn't enough for it to be considered objective, objective requires everybody agree because it would be demonstrable.

That source is the objectively existing moral character of God.

Who decided the moral base is the moral character of God? Maybe I feel MY moral character should be the moral base. Or maybe someone else decided something else is the moral base for morality. Just because you see your God as the moral base doesn't mean everybody else will

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah; but right now we aren’t talking about the other issues, we’re talking about morals....

If you want to look at morals in isolation then dont bring up complex policies that involve all manner of other considerations.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Uh no.

That could just as well be evidence for a morality that works based on the natural facts of being human.

This does not point to your explanation any more than it points to mine.

Not necessarily, especially if you believe in atheistic evolution, then the morality of different societies would more likely to vary wildly because of the randomness of the evolutionary process and some humans being more "advanced" than others. But if we are the result of a single moral creator and we are created in His image then this is expected to be the case.

 

[Ed1wolf]

"Almost all" can not be evidence for "absolute". It would be evidence for the opposite.

Not if humans have free will, then there will always be outliers. God did not create us as robots. Then our behavior would be absolutely the same everywhere.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you want to look at morals in isolation then dont bring up complex policies that involve all manner of other considerations.

I didn’t say morality in isolation, we’re talking about if morality is objective or subjective. The argument I am making is the fact that there are other complex policies that involve other considerations indicates morality is subjective, not objective. To simply look at morality by itself without considering other issues surrounding the moral action is not how things are done in the real world.

 

[stevevw]

No, it doesn´t show that. People use seemingly objective judgements all the time - in some instances you interprete it as a lapsus linguae and in some you interprete it as their "true moral view".

Despite how someone says something and whether they mean it or not, what I am saying is that a persons reaction to a situation is normally a true indication of how they feel about something. People have moral ideals and may claim to have a different view but when it comes to someone actually committing that moral wrong against them everyone reacts as though it was wrong.

Well, since you now equate "not liking" and seeing it as "morally wrong" your actual point flies out the window.

I am not equating a like or dislike with a moral. In saying that I have heard the example of subjective morality as being compared to someone liking or not liking a flavor of ice-cream. But my use of like was more about why people do not like having their stuff stolen. On the surface people may react because they do not like having their stuff taken. But when we look beyond this it is because they believe that stealing is unjust because someone has taken something that was their possession and is a violation. Therefore morally wrong.

Why can´t they?

Because it is about liking or disliking food. If 4 people are sitting at a table and two say they like the food, one says he thought it was OK and the other says he did not like the food how can anyone condemn the person who did not like the food. It is just an objective opinion/view. It is the same for subjective moral views. Replace the food with morals and you have the same situation.

Why couldn´t they.

Because a subjective view has no ultimate basis for determining that it is truly bad. Going back to the food example how can someone at the table condemn the person whose subjective view is they think the food is horrible or for moral who thinks stealing is OK. On what basis are they determining that their view is correct over the other persons view.

If you say you believe that you can condemn a person for having a view that you think is bad from your subjective view then you are saying that your view can determine what is ultimately true. But you have no basis for doing that because under a subjective view each persons view is just as valid as the other. There is no determination of what is ultimately good or bad, its just a view in a universe that has no ultimate basis of good and bad.

So I´ll put you down as a moral subjectivist.

Only if the objective moralists contradicts their own position as does groups like ISIS. But if people disagree about the application of that objective moral that is not being subjective.

You are again confusing "objective", "absolute" and "universally agreed upon".

Come back to me when you can demonstrate the existence of "objective morality".

The example given is an objective moral. Is not torturing a baby for fun objectively wrong as a moral. Regardless of a persons subjective view this example will always be morally wrong and therefore stands independent of the subjective human mind. Can you give me an example where someone would have the subjective view that torturing a baby for fun is morally good. If not then this is an example of objective morality.

Without even giving other examples I have already shown that morals have to have an objective basis. As soon as someone states that another persons subjective morality is wrong they are supporting objective morality because they are implying that there must be an objective basis for qualifying how they concluded that the other person is wrong. Otherwise they have no basis for saying anyone is wrong. If you say it is determined by society then how can we know that society got it right. We have seen examples where entire organisations or nations have got it wrong. They cannot be trusted.

 

[Belk]

Not if humans have free will, then there will always be outliers. God did not create us as robots. Then our behavior would be absolutely the same everywhere.

If there are outliers morality is not absolute. It might be objective but it is not absolute because it is not everywhere. That is what the word means.

 

[durangodawood]

Not necessarily, especially if you believe in atheistic evolution, then the morality of different societies would more likely to vary wildly because of the randomness of the evolutionary process and some humans being more "advanced" than others. But if we are the result of a single moral creator and we are created in His image then this is expected to be the case.

Thats a pretty huge claim youre making.

 

[durangodawood]

I didn’t say morality in isolation, we’re talking about if morality is objective or subjective. The argument I am making is the fact that there are other complex policies that involve other considerations indicates morality is subjective, not objective. To simply look at morality by itself without considering other issues surrounding the moral action is not how things are done in the real world.

No it doesnt. It may just as well indicate that the other considerations are subjective, or contingent on non-moral issues like ones access to information.

I know dam well what the discussion topic is. If you want to discuss just morality, and not these other considerations, then dont invoke examples that are confounded by these other considerations.

 

[Belk]

Not necessarily, especially if you believe in atheistic evolution,

There is no such thing as "atheistic evolution". It is just evolution.

then the morality of different societies would more likely to vary wildly because of the randomness of the evolutionary process and some humans being more "advanced" than others.

Evolution happens at a population level. There is no such thing as someone evolving to be more advanced.

But if we are the result of a single moral creator and we are created in His image then this is expected to be the case.

I fail to see this being any different from special creation to evolution.

 

[Redac]

Yeah we can always come up with moral examples where everybody agrees, but that isn't enough for it to be considered objective, objective requires everybody agree because it would be demonstrable.

Objective morality means that moral statements have a truth value to them, and that that truth value is independent of individual or collective perceptions and attitudes. That doesn't require that everyone know that truth value or agree on it.

 

[Ken-1122]

No it doesnt. It may just as well indicate that the other considerations are subjective, or contingent on non-moral issues like ones access to information.

I know dam well what the discussion topic is. If you want to discuss just morality, and not these other considerations, then dont invoke examples that are confounded by these other considerations.

I suspect we are talking past each other a bit concerning morals vs morals and other considerations. Here is how I see it; morality is judgment we make about actions we experience.

If I see a person killing another, it is easy to say “killing is wrong” and deem the act immoral, and leave it a that. But then the question becomes; why did he kill that person? Did he kill a person who broke into his house to attack his family? How about if he was invited to the house, a fight ensued, and the home owner felt his life was in danger and killed the guest? How about if he wasn’t inside the home, but was on his property threatening to kill him? Where do you draw the line?

In the real world, most moral issues aren’t as cut and dry as killing is wrong, because there are other considerations that must be taken into account before judging the act good or bad, those considerations must be addressed BEFORE judging. Therefore you can’t claim killing as always wrong, because you gotta admit there are cases when killing is right.

Objective means based on observable and measurable facts

Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

and facts can be demonstrated as true. If killing were objectively wrong, that would mean it is wrong in spite of those other considerations associated with the killing. It would also mean it could be demonstrated as wrong in all cases.

I know you are going to disagree, so tell me where I’ve gone wrong here.

 

[Ken-1122]

Objective morality means that moral statements have a truth value to them, and that that truth value is independent of individual or collective perceptions and attitudes.

So if the year were 1938 in Nazi Germany, and the Gestapo came to your door looking for Jews to send to the concentration camp, would you consider lying to the Gestapo in order to save lives wrong? Because if lying is wrong independent of your individual perceptions and attitudes that the Gestapo is wrong, and the Jewish lives deserve to be saved, that would mean you would be wrong unless you told the truth. So would you consider it wrong to lie under those conditions?

That doesn't require that everyone know that truth value or agree on it.

If there is such a thing as the truth, but nobody knows the truth, or agree on it, how do you know it exist? If it existed, don’t cha think somebody would have discovered it by now, and be able to demonstrate why it is the truth, for all to agree?

 

[stevevw]

If it´s not absolutely wrong (i.e. if there are exceptions to it) it´s relative.

Objective morality allows exceptions. It does not change the moral itself. The point is the moral is always wrong unless a justification allows someone to act against that moral. The way to remedy this is to add the exceptions to the moral objective. So the objective moral becomes Killing is always wrong except in self defence and saving anothers life. In that way there is nothing to add or no other situation that can be justified for killing no matter what situation or personal view that can be justified. If someone still wants to disagree and say killing is OK in other situtaions then they need to show jusification otherwise it then becomes immoral.

 

[quatona]

Objective morality allows exceptions.

We were talking absolute vs. relative, not objective vs. subjective.

 

[stevevw]

No. Just because laws originate from moralis doesn’t mean they are the same.. That would be like saying a car and a train are the same since they are both vehicles.

So what about the laws like to not kill and steal and the morals to not kill and steal. Are they not the same? Many laws are either directly the same as the moral or underpinned by the moral because originally that is how we determined what was right and wrong from our moral values.

No because there will be disagreements on what constitutes “out of control”, and “bad behavior”

Normally out of control is just that, a situation begins to have bad consequences to the point where it is affecting others and causing problems for society so they bring in a law to stop it happening. But I can see that there would be situations where people disagreed on what is out of control and this may be the problem because there are often self-interest, bias, influences from money that can sway peoples views. The recent lockout laws in Brisbane are an example where the government wanted to stop the drunken behaviour where people were getting into fights and some were being badly injured or killed when the entertainment sector of the city closed at 3 to 5 am. So they brought the closedown time to 1 am to stop the extra drinking time and it seems to have worked.

But there were many from the entertainment and leisure industry that complained and said it was wrong because it was destroying their business. A bit like the legalisation of pot. Some say it will cause more harm and others who seem to mostly be involved in selling it say it will not be harmful. The problem is sometimes that the minority who have a lot of money and vested interest can sway the people who make the decision through good marketing and money put in the right people's pockets.

Because they don't agree the act is wrong. When you are protecting your family from a violent intruder, that is not wrong, it is not a lesser of two wrongs, it is not a compromise for a specific situation, protecting your family is the morally RIGHT thing to do; anything less is wrong.

Yes if you kill someone when protecting your family it is seen as an exception for not killing. That is because there is a greater moral involved which is as you said not protecting your family or innocents. It is a compromise for a specific situation which is not to kill. In fact the person who kills in self defence is often traumatised and needs therapy as they still feel guilty for taking another life even though it was justified which shows how the original moral wrong still has an impact on the situation.

Obviously we disagree here because even though you think it is wrong, I do not.
Objective means based on fact, not opinion. Facts can be demonstrated. If morality were objective, you could demonstrate why you are right and I am wrong.

I thought I had already done that. Once again without even going into examples, the simple fact that people have subjective moral views implies that there must be an objective moral view that those subjective views are being measured against. Every time a person says in my view that action is morality correct and the other person view is wrong they are implying that there is an objective moral they are using to make that claim.

Again; compromise is subjective, not objective.

If we are having to justify our actions, then we are admitting an objective moral fact. Therefore, the objective moral absolute is “It’s never OK to kill or lie without proper justification.”

Our own human experience confirms these truths. Regardless of geographic location, place in history or form of culture, it’s never been morally acceptable to kill or lie without proper justification. Humans have historically recognized these two objective moral absolutes; these principles transcend culture, location and history.
If Moral Decisions Are Dependent on Circumstances, Are There No Objective Moral Truths? | Cold Case Christianity

Killing is easy. How about taxes? Is it morally fair for people with higher income to pay more? Is a progressive tax system where they pay a higher percentage fair? Should the rich be required to pay the health care coverage for those who are poor so they don’t die in the streets? How about if the poor’s illness is due to unhealthy lifestyle? Is it still fair?

Are you going to tell me everybody is going to agree on moral issues like that? I think not, and I can come up with a hundred more moral questions that everybody disagrees on.

No I don't think it is fair. All these examples have a moral underpinning. So is it fair for the rich to pay more taxes to help the poor. Yes, in other words is it morally right for those who are in a better position to help the needy. That is a basic moral that our societies live from ie the good Samaritan. It has only been compromised with the age of capitalism and neo-liberalisation which promotes individualism in being financially independent. But this policy has seen the growth of a small amount of rich and a larger and larger poor population who go without.

This is a good example of how money corrupts. Of course those with the money and especially liberal governments will say it is a good policy because it brings more wealth for all. But research has shown it does not work and in fact does the opposite. But subjective morality allows these types of corruptions and influences to dictate what is morally right and it is often the ones with the power and money that dominate what becomes morally acceptable in society.

If we believed that helping those in need was a moral objective it would trump all other views and be the guideline for how we live. I think money is one factor that can undermine all morals by corrupting peoples views.