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

[Ken-1122]

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.

I agree!

On the one hand you are breaking your word,

Of course! Because in this case, breaking your word is the right thing to do.

but on the other, you would be in a sense aiding in the injury of another.

You would only be aiding in the injury of another if you did the wrong thing by keeping your word. So where is the example of the lesser wrong?

Ken

 

[durangodawood]

You would only be aiding in the injury of another if you did the wrong thing by keeping your word. So where is the example of the lesser wrong?

Ken

Many consider breaking your word to be wrong in principle.

For them, though perhaps not for you, this is an example of doing a lesser wrong to prevent a greater one.

 

[Ken-1122]

Many consider breaking your word to be wrong in principle.

For them, though perhaps not for you, this is an example of doing a lesser wrong to prevent a greater one.

Okay; this is an example of a lesser wrong for THEM; not me. This is an example of morality being subjective, because if it were objectively wrong to break your word, it would be wrong in all cases; and there wouldn’t be an example, extenuating circumstance where breaking your word would be the right thing to do.

 

[durangodawood]

Okay; this is an example of a lesser wrong for THEM; not me. This is an example of morality being subjective, because if it were objectively wrong to break your word, it would be wrong in all cases; and there wouldn’t be an example, extenuating circumstance where breaking your word would be the right thing to do.

What difference does it make to the example whether word-breaking is objectively OR subjectively wrong? The point is the person working though the dilemma thinks its wrong. For him its the same whether this moral is based in objective facts about the real world or just his opinion. Point is they find find it wrong in principle yet have to compromise to avoid a greater wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

What difference does it make to the example whether word-breaking is objectively OR subjectively wrong? The point is the person working though the dilemma thinks its wrong. For him its the same whether this moral is based in objective facts about the real world or just his opinion. Point is they find find it wrong in principle yet have to compromise to avoid a greater wrong.

True! As a matter of fact, the person in the dilemma probably isn’t even thinking about the objective/subjective label, he is just thinking about right or wrong. I was just pointing out how in post #54 the person responding believes morality is objective, but he was actually describing it as subjective in the example he gave.

 

[durangodawood]

True! As a matter of fact, the person in the dilemma probably isn’t even thinking about the objective/subjective label, he is just thinking about right or wrong. I was just pointing out how in post #54 the person responding believes morality is objective, but he was actually describing it as subjective in the example he gave.

There was no reference to the basis of morality in the example. Thats for us to sort out.

 

[durangodawood]

True! As a matter of fact, the person in the dilemma probably isn’t even thinking about the objective/subjective label, he is just thinking about right or wrong. I was just pointing out how in post #54 the person responding believes morality is objective, but he was actually describing it as subjective in the example he gave.

I think youre confusing objective (based in demonstrable facts) morality with absolute (universally wrong over all time and space) morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

There was no reference to the basis of morality in the example. Thats for us to sort out.

In post #54, he didn't mention the basis of morality, he just said that it was objective.

I think youre confusing objective (based in demonstrable facts) morality with absolute (universally wrong over all time and space) morality.

No; I was not addressing absolute (universally wrong over all time and space) morality, just objective (based in demonstrable facts) morality

 

[durangodawood]

In post #54, he didn't mention the basis of morality, he just said that it was objective.


No; I was not addressing absolute (universally wrong over all time and space) morality, just objective (based in demonstrable facts) morality

Dont know what post 54 has to do with the example I proposed.

Also, he seems confused about what objective morality is.

Sounds like he thinks objective morality is whatever is demanded by God in the scriptures. If thats objective, then I say: show me. Its not objective at all. Its a matter of faith.

The only reasonable sense of "objective morality" is the set of rules that have evolved based on demonstrable facts about what makes for social cohesion and individual flourishing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you give an example?

It's not good to lie.
However it is better to lie to save a life. Saving a life is a morally higher responsibility.

That doesn't mean it is then okay to lie indiscriminately.

An objective morality assumes there exist moral priorities. It is precisely because saving a life is objectively more moral that this can be so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

Dont know what post 54 has to do with the example I proposed.

#54 had nothing to do with your example. Though I addressed them both, they had nothing to do with each other

Also, he seems confused about what objective morality is.

I don’t think he’s confused, I just think he’s wrong

Sounds like he thinks objective morality is whatever is demanded by God in the scriptures. If thats objective, then I say: show me. Its not objective at all. Its a matter of faith.

This is the typical christian concept of morality; which is why they think it is objective.

The only reasonable sense of "objective morality" is the set of rules that have evolved based on demonstrable facts about what makes for social cohesion and individual flourishing.

Morality isn’t based on demonstrable facts; thats why its subjective.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

It's not good to lie.
However it is better to lie to save a life. Saving a life is a morally higher responsibility.

In other words, usually its not good to lie, but sometimes it is.

That doesn't mean it is then okay to lie indiscriminately.

Of course not!

An objective morality assumes there exist moral priorities.

Subjective morality assumes this as well; the only difference is objective means it can be demonstrated. Because morality can’t be demonstrated it is subjective.

It is precisely because saving a life is objectively more moral that this can be so.

-CryptoLutheran

I can come up with a scenario where saving a life is NOT more moral. Thats subjectivity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In other words, usually its not good to lie, but sometimes it is.

Of course not!

Subjective morality assumes this as well; the only difference is objective means it can be demonstrated. Because morality can’t be demonstrated it is subjective.

I can come up with a scenario where saving a life is NOT more moral. Thats subjectivity.

Your definition of objectivity here isn't simply what is generally meant by objectivity. We aren't talking about empirically demonstrable morality; but whether there is an innate right and wrong.

I would also agree that simply "God said it, that is what makes something right or wrong" is a bad argument. It's also not the mainstream Christian position.

Christian philosophers have wrestled with the Euthyphro Dilemma for centuries; the mainstream Christian consensus posits that God is in His own Being innately good: Goodness is therefore intrinsic to God's Being. God cannot act contrary to God's Self, and thus what God commands is good, not because He commands it, but because the objective quality of Goodness is identical with God's Being. Thus there is neither a goodness which God is Himself subject to personally; neither is goodness the arbitrary decision making process of God. Instead, God being the Good, and the Most Sublime, is Goodness itself. God could not, therefore, have ever said, "Thou shalt murder" rather than "Thou shalt not murder", because "Thou shalt murder" would be contrary to the intrinsic quality of goodness which is innate to God's Being itself, of which there is nothing greater or above. An objective standard of goodness, therefore, exists because goodness has objective existence--its objectivity is in that it actually exists in reality not just in the abstract; namely God. Objectivity, here, does not mean "can be empirically demonstrated", but rather "exists in fact".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Of course not!

But why not?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GrowingSmaller]

from Matthew 13:
and others (seeds) fell upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth: and straightway they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth: 6 and when the sun was risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In other words, no, Jesus isn't "an immortal, all-powerful entity", He is confessed to be both God and human.

So.... a human, who's also God. A God in a human body, if you will. And God is an all-knowing, all-powerfull entity, isn't he? Humans don't have the power for "miracles" and "resurections", after all...

You can't have your pie and eat it too....

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.

Except the whole "sin thing" and, off course, the all-knowing and all-powerfull part.
Simple humans like you and me in every way, don't really have the power to change the molecular composition of water to turn it into wine. Neither do we have psychic / magical / divine abilities to make non-functioning eyes "just work" again. Neither do we have the power to come back to life after dieing.

So no, this Jesus fellow is not just "simply human like you and me".

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.

Apparantly, only because he himself allowed it to be so. If he can make a blind man see anyway or make a dead guy come back to life "just because", surely he's also capable of not bruising himself if he wanted to.


The guy is either God in the flesh or he's just a human. You can't have it both ways. Especially not one way when it is convenient for your story and another way when it's convenient for another part of the story.

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.

And then resurected himself as the immortal, all-powerfull, all-knowing being that he always was, like no other person who was crucified, could do.

So the idea that his guy was "just a human" like all others, clearly isn't consistent with the actual story.

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

Yeah, I don't really care about self-contradicting theological doctrines.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's not good to lie.
However it is better to lie to save a life. Saving a life is a morally higher responsibility.

Your second and third sentence is in direct contradiction with the blanket statement in the first sentence.

The second and third sentence demonstrates that the first is insufficient as a general rule.
The correct formulation would be that "To lie can be wrong, though it all depends on the content of the lie and the circumstances in which it is done".

Since, clearly, in some cases lieing is the only right thing to do.
It's a cliché, but I don't see how NOT lieing when the Gestapo asks you "where are the jews hiding?" could ever be the moral thing to do. Ever.

It's not "the lesser of two evils" either. It's not "wrong" to lie about that to Gestapo officers. It is morally right to do so.

An objective morality assumes there exist moral priorities.

Wheter or not such morality based on such priorities can be called "objective" would completely depend on where those priorities come from.

It is precisely because saving a life is objectively more moral that this can be so.

I actually agree with that. Probably for vastly different reasons then you, though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Subjective morality assumes this as well; the only difference is objective means it can be demonstrated. Because morality can’t be demonstrated it is subjective.

Honestly though, I don't entirely agree with that.

I have no problem at all with the idea that, at least in part, morality is a rather objective thingy to an extent. Or perhaps "pseudo-objective".

I'll try and explain.....

In the end, what IS morality?
I'ld say it is some sort of "code of conduct" which doesn't exist simply for it's own sake, but rather to achieve a certain goal. That goal being a peacefull society/world where well-being, freedom and prosperity is maximized for all sentient beings.

I think it's safe to say that that is the entire "point" of morality. To ensure social cohesion, to ensure the existence of a society where "life is good", where love and solidarity outrank hate and selfishness.

Every action / decision we as members of a society engage in, ultimately have impact on other people or even the entire group. When making moral judgements, essentially the question we ask is what that impact is and if it benefits the "moral goals" of a group or if it is detrimental to it.

This is why stealing is universally seen as "wrong" in general. Because it is detrimental to societal concepts like peace, love, solidarity, respect, rights of property, freedom, etc.

So essentially, whenever we make a moral judgement, we engage in rational reasoning: a rational evaluation of the facts followed by a factual analysis of its implications, impact and eventual consequences.

That, by itself, is about as an objective reasoning process as you can get.
We have a starting point and a desired end-point. And wheter or not a certain action sets us on the road to that end-point is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of demonstrable fact.

Stealing, raping, enslavement, murder,... none of those things factually sets us on a path to a peaceful and loving society. To me, that makes them as objectively wrong as it gets.

The only thing you could argue here to not be "objective", is the desired end-point. But even there, I'ld dare to call that debatable.

In any case, assuming we all agree on the desired end-point.... then the road towards that end-point is rather objective. Because, as you say, it is a matter of "demonstrable fact" in terms of impact etc.

I can come up with a scenario where saving a life is NOT more moral. Thats subjectivity.

Agreed.

However imo, "objective morality" doesn't mean that X is true "at all times in all circumstances". There's no reason why something can be reasoned/evaluated objectively, while also keeping into account circumstantial parameters. Or "context", if you will.


After all... when you say "x is immoral" and I ask you why.... it's not like you are going to answer "because I believe it is..."

Nope. I'm quite sure that you'll be able to actually present a reasoned and rational argument, based on facts, to motivate your moral judgement.

And if someone counters your argument with a better agument, I'm sure you'll change your mind instead of dogmatically sticking to your "opinion". Right?


So, in summary....
I say morality is both objective and subjective.

The subjective part, is the desired end-goal (to an extent).
The objective part is the process of how you come to a moral evaluation/judgement, given the facts and the desired end-goal.

This is why I'm fine with the term "pseudo-objective".

 

[durangodawood]

...Morality isn’t based on demonstrable facts; thats why its subjective.....

The enduring (as opposed the the ones that are completely culturally contingent) morals are based on objective facts.
For a really simple example:
Objective fact: a society where everyone is afraid of being murdered in their homes will fail and be replaced.

So when I say some morals are objective, I dont mean they exist in some material form we can examine. That would be ridiculous. I mean they derive from objective facts of human living, even though they 'live' in the mind, in myths, in religion, in law, etc.

 

[quatona]

The enduring (as opposed the the ones that are completely culturally contingent) morals are based on objective facts.
For a really simple example:
Objective fact: a society where everyone is afraid of being murdered in their homes will fail and be replaced.

Let´s just assume for sake of the argument that this assertion is accurate (and that the opposite - a society where noone is afraid..., will not fail and be replaced - is accurate, as well).
I am not seeing a moral proposition yet.
So what would be the moral proposition that follows from these observations? IOW: Can you bridge the is-ought gap without adding some subjectivity?

I mean they derive from objective facts of human living,

Well, to be precise, some derive from objective facts and some don´t. Now, for those that do, how does deriving a moral preceipt or proposition from an objective fact render the preceipt or proposition objective?
Things fall down. That´s an objective fact. I derive from this objective fact the moral proposition that we shouldn´t keep things from falling down. Is my moral proposition objective?