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

Status
Not open for further replies.

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,421
345
✟49,085.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I can understand how ethics can be subjective for me, but how is it possible for ethics to be objective for you?(or anyone else) How are you defining objective/subjective in reference to morality?


Okay; here it sounds like you are describing morality as subjective; not objective. If you believe morality can be objective, how?

Ken
Its objective in the sense that morality is based in real ontology. So I am arguing for an aspect of moral realism. There are good actions, and good mental states, just as there is good soil and good fruit not only in the Bible, but also in agriculture. "Goodness" and "evil" are properties which stem from life and biological needs.

All those so called moral laws (which are in fact just contingent regulations) are derived from or based in actual grounds in the human psyche. Those grounds may be subjective in one sense (they are mind dependent, and relate to feelings) but in another sense they are ontologically independent of my wishes and therefore objective. Just as I feel hungry when I need food, it is said blessed (prosperous, happy etc) are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. We seem to need morality to survive as subjective agents.


I am personally forced to prefer not being traumatised, not by mere whim or wish, but by the nature of trauma as I experienced it. There is a similar force acting on most people, inferred because morality tends to centre on causing pleasure, happiness, well being, rather than pain, sadness and illness. Its part of the way we are wired psychologically. Normally speaking.

Just as a plant strives towards light, or a fish cannot survive out of water. So also we strive for the "good" (an abstraction relating to well being), albeit imperfectly, and aggregate or lives around its causes.

I conclude that therefore there are causes of opinions about good and evil, just as there are causes of opinions about the sun and the moon. So they are caused, and forced to some degree or other - whatever my subjective "opinion" may be on the matter, the sun still rises and the moon still sets.

If opinion is "mere opinion" on the other hand, that seems to indicate groundlessness and even randomness, in the sense of not being caused in an orderly or scientifically understandable fashion. Yet we can understand that people are in general averse to torture, to starvation, to being burnt alive - and the Red Cross, Amnersty International, and other charities etc are there to promote morally fitting "memes". How many mass murderers have been canonised by the Catholic Church?

Just as the seed of the "kingdom" grows on good soil in Christianity, likewise moral systems grow in a feedback loop similar to coral growth or plant growth. Its a matter of mind striving towards those goods (well being, happiness, health etc) and we taste the fruits in the availability of medicine, food, solicitude etc. We're not exactly compelled to prefer health etc., but there is a degree of impulse, drive. There are real forces at work. Its basically a survival mechanism, and mechanisms are based in reality even if its perceptual realities like feelings and pains and memory related social organisation stemming from these.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Its objective in the sense that morality is based in real ontology.
I disagree! What we call “good” and what we call “bad” are simply subjective judgment labels we attach to actions we observe; they have no actual existence outside of human thought; they are no more real than funny, stupid, boring, smart, or silly.

So I am arguing for an aspect of moral realism. There are good actions, and good mental states, just as there is good soil and good fruit not only in the Bible, but also in agriculture. "Goodness" and "evil" are properties which stem from life and biological needs.
I disagree! What we call good soil, or good fruit, is soil or fruit we consider useful. It can be demonstrated if soil is adequate for growing plants or not. It can be demonstrated if fruit is too ripe, not ripe enough, damaged, or good. But can you demonstrate good actions? Is lying (purposely giving false information) bad? Suppose telling the truth to an evil man will lead to the death of an innocent person; is it still bad under those conditions? Is killing (ending a life) bad? If so, how are you supposed to eat? If extenuating circumstances are taken into account before determining if an action is good or bad, that is subjective, not objective.

Ken
 
  • Agree
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,421
345
✟49,085.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I disagree! What we call “good” and what we call “bad” are simply subjective judgment labels we attach to actions we observe; they have no actual existence outside of human thought; they are no more real than funny, stupid, boring, smart, or silly.
I agree with that. This thing is that these "subjective vs objective" morality discussions can be framed in different ways, using conflicting definitions and they're well known to have internal discussion about what one and the other is actually committed to.
I disagree! What we call good soil, or good fruit, is soil or fruit we consider useful. It can be demonstrated if soil is adequate for growing plants or not. It can be demonstrated if fruit is too ripe, not ripe enough, damaged, or good. But can you demonstrate good actions?
I can show you ontological properties of a human being, just as I can with a vegetable or an animal, and in a way that shows it is healthy or diseased. Objectively so. Now, for a human being we have "internal access" to a psychological life, and mind - body health is objectively better ... for the agent possessing it.

Is lying (purposely giving false information) bad? Suppose telling the truth to an evil man will lead to the death of an innocent person; is it still bad under those conditions? Is killing (ending a life) bad? If so, how are you supposed to eat? If extenuating circumstances are taken into account before determining if an action is good or bad, that is subjective, not objective.

Ken
I tried to hint at this above, these are contingent rules. There is a semantic and an ontological difference between certain objectivists. I am not a semantic objectivist, I don't think "stealing is wrong" is literally true, or true in all cases. But I think "Someone stole my wallet, I can no longer afford to eat" can be regarded as a bad predicament for an agent, as it affects mind-body ontology: health and well being.

The rules of play are important only and insofar as the affect the pieces. Human morality is grounded in the interests of people, as living agents for whom things can be said to be better or worse.

Just as, if a plant could do ethics, and use persuasive terms like "right" and "wrong" it would probably approve of being moved into water and sunshine, as opposed to sprinkled with plant killer. But it wouldn't be the semantics alone that mattered, their warrant would "stem from" the plants needs (no pun intended).

Throw a bucket of water on my head and Ill be annoyed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I agree with that. This thing is that these "subjective vs objective" morality discussions can be framed in different ways, using conflicting definitions and they're well known to have internal discussion about what one and the other is actually committed to.
Fair enough, so provide your definition of “objective” as applied to morality, and give an example of a moral action that is objective.

I can show you ontological properties of a human being, just as I can with a vegetable or an animal, and in a way that shows it is healthy or diseased. Objectively so. Now, for a human being we have "internal access" to a psychological life, and mind - body health is objectively better ... for the agent possessing it.
ontological properties of a human being has nothing to do with moral actions. Again; can you demonstrate good moral actions?
I tried to hint at this above, these are contingent rules.
Yes! Contingent is subjective, not objective.
There is a semantic and an ontological difference between certain objectivists. I am not a semantic objectivist, I don't think "stealing is wrong" is literally true, or true in all cases.
In order for stealing to be objectively wrong, it MUST be wrong in all cases; otherwise it is subjective. It is a contradiction to claim stealing objectively wrong; yet recognize there are extenuating circumstances when stealing might be right.
But I think "Someone stole my wallet, I can no longer afford to eat" can be regarded as a bad predicament for an agent, as it affects mind-body ontology: health and well being.
Because I can come up with a scenario where it would be good, means it is subjective, not objective.
The rules of play are important only and insofar as the affect the pieces. Human morality is grounded in the interests of people, as living agents for whom things can be said to be better or worse.

Just as, if a plant could do ethics, and use persuasive terms like "right" and "wrong" it would probably approve of being moved into water and sunshine, as opposed to sprinkled with plant killer. But it wouldn't be the semantics alone that mattered, their warrant would "stem from" the plants needs (no pun intended).

Throw a bucket of water on my head and Ill be annoyed.
In order to prevent us from talking past each other, this is how I define subjective vs objective as applied to morality

I define subjective as
Personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances taken into account.

I define objective as
Based on observable facts; demonstrable; personal opinions, beliefs, or extenuating circumstances not taken into account
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Because moral issues vary from person to person, and extenuating circumstances are taken into account when deciding moral issues, I believe morality is subjective; not objective.

Since you believe morality is objective, please provide the definitions as you see them and make a case for morality being objective.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,421
345
✟49,085.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I don't have access to internet at home so my philosophy library's defintions of objectivity (and axiological logic and rationality) unavailable at present.

here's one from online:

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true
Morality - RationalWiki

I take it to be factually true ontologically that health is better than being tortured. For me. Its not just an opinion, but a factual state of affairs even if its a fact about subjectivity. Its still a fact. if I have such an opinion, then its the the facts that cause the opinion, not the other way round.

Secondly semantically "murder is wrong" is true in the sense that "If we prohibit murder its less likely we'll be tortured, and more likely well be healthy. Therefore its better for us to prohibit murder" is true. Civil laws are like algorithms. If in a democracy we desire to use such collectively chosen "algorithm" (What is an algorithm?) then its a group level choice with a valuable pay off or return on an investment.... and therefore rational to choose it as a general rule.

See below for proof:

I am using an axiom form axiological logic (logic of value) i.e. the better of two options ought to be chosen.

It is in fact rational to prohibit murder, as epistemologically rationality can be defined as "belief action (and even desire) which is in harmony with proper reasoning" and there is as shown above reasoning appropriate to facts about subjectivity (I ought to choose health over torture because its fitting or correct logically for me personally given certain facts about subjectivity)... and also when prohibiting murder collectively its conclusion based in reasoning appropriate to group level decision making where subjects share similar ethically relevant properties to me (preferring not to be tortured etc.)

I don't believe objectivity necessarily implies universality. A rule "smoking causes cancer" can be objective but not universally true. Its related to the "inductive statistical method" in philosophy of sciences. As opposed to the "deductive nomological /covering law" model of causation.

For me, moral rules are true or false in that they promote well being or limit it - but the normal language of ethics ("murder is wrong" etc) hides this such that moral sentences need rephrasing for us to see the semantics more clearly. We need analytic philosophy, looking at the uses of terms in "language games". If I say "smoking is bad for you" I probably mean "smoking can kill, its better if you don't" in that the usage conveys that indirectly. "Wrongness" needs looking into as a concept because its not 100% clear in its social function at first glance.



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I don't have access to internet at home so my philosophy library's defintions of objectivity (and axiological logic and rationality) unavailable at present.

here's one from online:

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true
Morality - RationalWiki

I take it to be factually true ontologically that health is better than being tortured. For me. Its not just an opinion, but a factual state of affairs even if its a fact about subjectivity. Its still a fact. if I have such an opinion, then its the the facts that cause the opinion, not the other way round.

Secondly semantically "murder is wrong" is true in the sense that "If we prohibit murder its less likely we'll be tortured, and more likely well be healthy. Therefore its better for us to prohibit murder" is true. Civil laws are like algorithms. If in a democracy we desire to use such collectively chosen "algorithm" (What is an algorithm?) then its a group level choice with a valuable pay off or return on an investment.... and therefore rational to choose it as a general rule.

See below for proof:

I am using an axiom form axiological logic (logic of value) i.e. the better of two options ought to be chosen.

It is in fact rational to prohibit murder, as epistemologically rationality can be defined as "belief action (and even desire) which is in harmony with proper reasoning" and there is as shown above reasoning appropriate to facts about subjectivity (I ought to choose health over torture because its fitting or correct logically for me personally given certain facts about subjectivity)... and also when prohibiting murder collectively its conclusion based in reasoning appropriate to group level decision making where subjects share similar ethically relevant properties to me (preferring not to be tortured etc.)

I don't believe objectivity necessarily implies universality. A rule "smoking causes cancer" can be objective but not universally true. Its related to the "inductive statistical method" in philosophy of sciences. As opposed to the "deductive nomological /covering law" model of causation.

For me, moral rules are true or false in that they promote well being or limit it - but the normal language of ethics ("murder is wrong" etc) hides this such that moral sentences need rephrasing for us to see the semantics more clearly. We need analytic philosophy, looking at the uses of terms in "language games". If I say "smoking is bad for you" I probably mean "smoking can kill, its better if you don't" in that the usage conveys that indirectly. "Wrongness" needs looking into as a concept because its not 100% clear in its social function at first glance.
Yeah, it´s objectively true that I have subjective preferences. :)
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true
Morality - RationalWiki.
Its objectively true that people are happier and society survives longer when people dont murder their neighbors.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't have access to internet at home so my philosophy library's defintions of objectivity (and axiological logic and rationality) unavailable at present.

here's one from online:

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true
Morality - RationalWiki
So if something is factually true, you should be able to demonstrate it as true. So how do you demonstrate actions as good or bad?
I take it to be factually true ontologically that health is better than being tortured. For me.
For you? It would have to apply to everybody under all conditions in order to be objective. The fact that I can create a scenario where an argument can be made that keeping a specific person tortured rather than keeping him healthy shows subjectivity.
Its not just an opinion, but a factual state of affairs even if its a fact about subjectivity. Its still a fact. if I have such an opinion, then its the the facts that cause the opinion, not the other way round.
Facts about subjectivity? Facts that cause opinions? Do you not see the contradictions in what you just said? If you have facts supporting your beliefs, they are no longer opinions; they’re facts.
Secondly semantically "murder is wrong" is true in the sense that "If we prohibit murder its less likely we'll be tortured, and more likely well be healthy.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight; if we prevent murder, there will be less torture? And people will be healthier? How on Earth did you make THAT leap???
Therefore its better for us to prohibit murder" is true.
Shall I list a couple of scenarios where it is not better to prevent murder in specific cases? (remember murder is a legal term; laws aren’t always right)
Civil laws are like algorithms. If in a democracy we desire to use such collectively chosen "algorithm" (What is an algorithm?) then its a group level choice with a valuable pay off or return on an investment.... and therefore rational to choose it as a general rule.
Civil laws are objective; meaning actions can be demonstrated as legal or illegal. Morality is subjective because actions cannot be demonstrated as good or bad, they are always based on opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Its objectively true that people are happier and society survives longer when people dont murder their neighbors.
Are you sure about that? Can you prove that as true? Suppose the reason people don't murder their neighbors is because they are all living under Sharia law? Can you prove they would be happier and lived longer than if they lived in a free country where criminals do occasionally kill people?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Are you sure about that? Can you prove that as true? Suppose the reason people don't murder their neighbors is because they are all living under Sharia law? Can you prove they would be happier and lived longer than if they lived in a free country where criminals do occasionally kill people?
1. yes

2. probably, with a lot of work, which I'm not going to do.

3. yes, we can all imagine certain ways of enforcing the anti-murder moral that would make people even more miserable, on average.

4. we're discussing moral codes, not laws nor forms of govt.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
1. yes

2. probably, with a lot of work, which I'm not going to do.

3. yes, we can all imagine certain ways of enforcing the anti-murder moral that would make people even more miserable, on average.

4. we're discussing moral codes, not laws nor forms of govt.


You made an objective claim. Objective claims are based on fact, not opinion. I asked you to back up your claim/facts but for whatever reason, you are unwilling to. If you are unwilling to back up your claims, you shouldn’t make them.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
You made an objective claim. Objective claims are based on fact, not opinion. I asked you to back up your claim/facts but for whatever reason, you are unwilling to. If you are unwilling to back up your claims, you shouldn’t make them.
Thats not entirely true. I thought the claim was non-controversial but useful for making my larger point.

You seem to conflate the claim about morals with all kind of other factors like law and the state and so on. But I didnt make claims about those things.

If that brings my argument to a dead end, then oh well. I dont have time to reinvent the wheel for you here.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
What life? Isn't Jesus supposed to be an immortal, all-powerful entity?

From the symbol drawn up at the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD,

"we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once completely Divine and completely human; truly God and truly man, consisting of a rational soul* and body; of one substance with the Father as regards His Deity, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards His humanity; like us in all ways, except sin."

In other words, no, Jesus isn't "an immortal, all-powerful entity", He is confessed to be both God and human. Not pretending to be human, not kind of like a human, not only looking human-ish--but actually human, in every way like you and me, except the whole sin thing. That means if He stubbed His toe He said "ouch", if He fell over, he bruised. If it got a bit too cold out, He caught the sniffles. And it means that when He was hung up on a Roman cross, He bled and died just like every other person who was crucified in the long bloody history of Roman crucifixion.

In fact the idea that Jesus was somehow incorruptible (prior to the resurrection) is a heretical teaching known as Aphthartodocetism, also known as Julianism from its proponent, Julian of Halicarnassus. Aphthartodocetism refers to the fact that Jesus only seemed like He could suffer, but He couldn't actually suffer; and thus His passion is ultimately nothing more than theatrics. This is contrary to orthodox Christian dogma: Jesus, being truly and actually human, actually suffered, and actually died. As a human being.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Cuddles333

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2011
1,103
162
65
Denver
✟30,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Until the Gospel came about, it may have been more difficult to prove Objective morality. The Gospel actually freed up our conscience to recognize what objective morality and Agape love, when we are presented with them.

For instance, we know that stealing is wrong. However, it would be sinful to have let a diabetic die because the supplier refused to release the insulin at such a price that neither you nor the diabetic had enough money at the time to pay what the supplier was demanding, and you could have gained unlawful access to it. All objective morality is qualified. Meaning that under the circumstance, a thing will be either objectively right or wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Until the Gospel came about, it may have been more difficult to prove Objective morality. The Gospel actually freed up our conscience to recognize what objective morality and Agape love, when we are presented with them.
Are you under the impression that only Christians are capable of recognizing objective morally and Agape love? That those who are not christians are incapable of this?

For instance, we know that stealing is wrong. However, it would be sinful to have let a diabetic die because the supplier refused to release the insulin at such a price that neither you nor the diabetic had enough money at the time to pay what the supplier was demanding, and you could have gained unlawful access to it. All objective morality is qualified. Meaning that under the circumstance, a thing will be either objectively right or wrong.
It sounds like what you are describing is subjective morality; not objective morality.

Ken
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...It sounds like what you are describing is subjective morality; not objective morality...
You are making a common error in assuming that objective morality means we never encounter situations in which values conflict, and you have to subordinate one legit moral value to a higher one.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are making a common error in assuming that objective morality means we never encounter situations in which values conflict, and you have to subordinate one legit moral value to a higher one.
No; objective morality means based on fact; extenuating circumstances, beliefs, or opinions are not taken into consideration. Example; If stealing is objectivly wrong, that would mean there is never a situation where stealing could be considered anything but wrong.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
No; objective morality means based on fact; extenuating circumstances, beliefs, or opinions are not taken into consideration. Example; If stealing is objectivly wrong, that would mean there is never a situation where stealing could be considered anything but wrong.
Correct.

Sometimes you have to do a lesser wrong to prevent a greater wrong. We all hope it doesnt come to that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Can you give an example?
I was lazy and found a quick example online:

In Plato’s The Republic, an excellent example is given:

It would be wrong to return a knife that you borrowed from a friend if he was not of sound mind and you had reason to believe that he was likely to harm another with it.

On the one hand you are breaking your word, but on the other, you would be in a sense aiding in the injury of another.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.