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

[stevevw]

If you think about this for more than a few seconds, you'll see that any argument that tries to invalidate the objectivity of my system can be countered by the system itself, and therefore fails, because you can't define objectivity into existence. At best, you and get into an endless series of "nuh uh" and "uh huh". And since those aren't actually arguments, you can't prove your point.

Face it, there's absolutely no way to show that a moral system is objective, because based on the definition of "morality", there's no specific requirements of any given system.

It only took me a few seconds to spot the contradiction when you said "if the person does not get caught". I think you have the wrong idea of objective morality. Just because a person injects a position into their moral system that says no objective claim can prove me wrong does not mean that negates objectivity. Objectivity stands outside the human claims or opinion so anything the person with the moral system says can be proven wrong with science becuase a scientific position is outside human opinion.

It can be shown scientifically that the actions the person with the moral system that claims "everything must benefit them and does not care about the effects on others is wrong". Medical science shows the murder harmed anothers wellbeing independent of that person or anyone else. Science can even show independent of the person and anyone else that their own actions hurt the person with the moral system which makes their own moral system contradict what they claim it was about. That trumps anything they say or anyone else says.

 

[Ken-1122]

Any act that is unjustified. War can also be unjustified such as the Vietnam war, the Iraqi war and many other wars. But generally without war a wrong moral act would still apply whether it was your enermy or not.

Wait a minute; one question at a time please! You asked me would I believe my views as right if it were scientifically proven that my views had a bad effect on the wellbeing of others. That is the question I was responding to. You said nothing about my beliefs being unjustified; obviously if I felt my views were unjustified, I wouldn’t have them! If it is scientifically proven that my views effect the wellbeing of others in a negative way, it would depend on who these others are who are being effected. I could come up with a hundred scenarios where I would change my mind (like do I see them as victims) or would keep my views (like if they were villains). One question at a time please!

Then why are there warnings on cigarette packs saying Medical authorities warn that smoking is a health hazard showing pictures of diseased lungs, arteries ect. Trans fats are medically proven and warnings are made from medical authorities. The same for alcohol where they say there is a limit to how many drinks for a health lifestyle. In Australia there is a worrying trend of excessive drinking and the results speak for themselves with alcohol related deaths from drink driving, liver disease, fetal alcohol syndrome and even domestic violence. Indigenous people are especially affected.

Sugar is a good example of science and the public disagreeing. Some sites will say sugar is OK others will say it is bad for you and can cause disabeties and heart disease. So the jury is still out on this. It is harder to determine becuase sugar is a natural part of life but there are limits. I think there is some evidence that excess sugar can cause problems and certainly most diets cut it out and are proven to lose weight. But just because there is disagreement and no definite answer does not mean that there is no truth that it may turn out bad for you. If not then that will make it OK to use.

Again; science does not pass moral judgment on any of the issues mentioned; people do. Politicians and others use scientific data and other things to pass moral judgment on these issues. If you disagree, provide me a scientific theory that says smoking or anything else mentioned is wrong.

Rape was never supported as good in the bible and neither was slavery in the way most people understand it. But despite this if people treated people badly and justified it with the bible and people were hurt then they can be shown as being wrong. The medical evidence may not have been there in the day but it can show it as wrong now which makes it wrong for all time whether people knew it or not.

Slavery was not ended due to the discovery of some new medical evidence, it was ended because moral views changed and slavery was no longer morally acceptable to most.

It gradually changes over time with evidence showing that it is wrong. Not because someone just decides they want a change like clothing. The change about slavery and the treatmentof blacks was through human and civil rights. It took reformers to do that. But reformers would be classed as heritics under a subjective morality as they demand a change to the existing views that society has decided as being right. They stand outside the general consensus but more importantly they say that the consensus morals are wrong which would make them immoral. Yet they end up being the most moral.

Umm… You’ve got that backwards. The “powers that be” are the moral objectivist who believe they are right; end of discussion. Because morality is subjective, people were able to disagree with those in power and eventually change their beliefs. This is how slavery was ended, this is how black people were able to get their citizenship rights. Those with subjective moral views were initially seen as outsiders because their views clashed with those moral views that were seen as objective by the powers that be, but as time goes on, eventually they were able to change their hearts.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

This is the definition of objective morality.
A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.

Science can prove moral objective facts just as they do in court with showing how the weapon used fits the wound and the wound killed the person. The persons DNA and finger prints are on the weapon. These are facts no human can challenge. All we have to do is show that the persons wellbeing was ffectedby the moral act and science can prove what affects peoples wellbeing such as assault breaks bones, abuse leaves bruises and both traumatize people.

So why would you trust a surgeon to cut you open and perhaps work on your heart. Why do we trust traveling in areoplanes if science did not discover how arodynamics works. How does scientists land a satelite on Mars in the exact spot if they did not understand how gravity works. These are all scientific facts that allow scientists to do things according to maths and calculations that stand regardless of a persons personal opinion.

Science itself is not making any comments about morality. It is a tool we can use to show that a moral view a person has will caused damage to another person beyond their opinion. So if a persons moral view is that there is nothing wrong with driving a car fast, we can show through scientific tests with cars on speed and time/distance for breaking that speed makes it more risky and likely you are going to have a crash. In fact years of statistics show it is a fact and when we reduce speed it is one proven way to reduce deaths by car accidents. So that disproves the person who says speed is not a bad thing.

No all you have done is adjusted the way heat affects the water. The scientific fact is not that there are different ways to heat water. The scientific fact is we can only heat water to the boiling point by heat. So if someone says we can boil water by ice or by staring at it it can be scientifically proven as a fact that only heat can boil water and this will objectively prove the person as wrong because it is not anyones personal opinion that heat boils water it is an independent fact outside human views that comes from science which discovered and verified that only heat boils water. We can argue about how that heat can boil water such as by fire, cook top or microwave but the fact remains we need heat. If we lower boiling points we still need heat to bring it to the new temperature.

The scientific measurement and in the case of rape it will be a medical practictioner and a psychologist ill do an examination and tests and will determine what damage is done. Just like a mechanic does tests to see what is wrong with your car. From that we will know what is wrong. Rape will cause damage as it is an act of force which means against a persons will. They will try to fight and the attacker will do damage. It is often the psychological damage that can last years ie women is scared to go out at night, to have relationships, loses confidences, may turn to drugs, self abuse etc ect. This is determined by a psychological evaluation which will stand up in court or for insurance claims.

People with expert know how that have studied at UNi for years like doctors, geneticists, psychologists, psychiatrists, biologists and neorologists.

I think I have already stated that I am not forcing anyone to do or believe anything. It is just a fact that gets put out there in the universe like that water needs heat to boil. people can takee it or leave it. peeople can choose to still believe that ice boils water. In fact objective moraly does not work if it is forced on people as part of having objective morality is conscience and free will. The right to choose right or wrong and to live with your conscience.

That cannot be the case as most societies are continually telling us what we can and can't do as far as the law. They are saying to everyone regardless of their personal views that certain things are wrong and if you do them you will be punished.

The ironic thing about subjective morality is we end up with more laws, rules and regulations than an objective system becuase we have to protect just about every view. Such as anti descriminations laws, equal rights, council by laws, political legislations, and an ever increasing legal system that gets more and more complicated.

The funny thing is you are objecting to my view that there is objective morality when you support subjective morality that should allow and accept different views no matter what they are even if you disagree, even if they are horrible to you. It is almost as though you want me to give up my position and take on yours which totally against subjective morality.

I believe it is objective from what have said, not becuase it is my view but becuase I respect things like science which can inform people of certain verifiable facts. You have every right to have your thesis and hold you views. At the end of the day we may disagree but that is OK too.

Heat is actually one of the most inefficient ways to raise the kinetic energy of a system. Electromagnetism, mechanical manipulation (pressure) and many other methods produce the waste energy called "heat." But, the point has been missed. This is all i will say.

Not gonna continue - lest I get a warning again.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

 

[Ken-1122]

The laws of morality do apply to Him because He is the source of morality. But just as there are different roles in society, there are also different roles in the universe. Just as it is moral and legal for a human Judge to confine someone to a jail cell for committing a crime so it is moral and just for God (the ultimate judge) to allow someone to be killed for their sin.

Says who? Who made your idea of God the moral judge over all of us? With human law things are different because there is a police force that will ENFORCE human laws; but your idea of God doesn’t have any enforcement. Unless you have enforcement, you have nothing! The only people your God’s laws apply to, are people like you who choose to allow it.

Since we are created in the image of God, our moral conscience generally confirms that what God does is right and generally conforms to God's moral laws. But there are rare cases where we cannot trust our conscience due to our sinful natures especially if we are not a Christian because we don't have the holy spirit working and teaching our consciences to recognize goodness a little better everyday. So unbelievers are more likely to get confused about morality especially the longer they go in denying who He is and rejecting Him. Their consciences become distorted over time. But Our moral conscience helps us to see that God is good and that gets reinforced when we become one of His followers and have a personal relationship with Him.

Care to answer my question? Would you become a rapist? Or is there something inside you that knows rape is wrong, independent of whatever you believe God says?

 

[stevevw]

Wait a minute; one question at a time please! You asked me would I believe my views as right if it were scientifically proven that my views had a bad effect on the wellbeing of others. That is the question I was responding to. You said nothing about my beliefs being unjustified; obviously if I felt my views were unjustified, I wouldn’t have them! If it is scientifically proven that my views effect the wellbeing of others in a negative way, it would depend on who these others are who are being effected. I could come up with a hundred scenarios where I would change my mind (like do I see them as victims) or would keep my views (like if they were villains). One question at a time please!

Sorry I was responding to your reply which I though needed more than one answer. Anyway though you may have come up with a hundred scenarios each could be determined as being scientifically good or bad for supporting human wellbeing.

Again; science does not pass moral judgment on any of the issues mentioned; people do. Politicians and others use scientific data and other things to pass moral judgment on these issues. If you disagree, provide me a scientific theory that says smoking or anything else mentioned is wrong.

No you are right people science itself does not pass the judgemnet but it does help someone prove that an act is wrong such as the person driving the car fast caused it to lose control and crash into the other car killing the occupant. If science cannot prove that smoking was wrong becuase it has a bad effect on health how did people use medical evicence to sue tobacco companies of billions of dollars. The Tobacco companies would have won the case if it wasnt for the medical science.

Slavery was not ended due to the discovery of some new medical evidence, it was ended because moral views changed and slavery was no longer morally acceptable to most.

The moral views had to change for reason though. I suggest they knew it was wrong for sometime but resisted change becuase it benefited some powerful people who controlled things. It took reformers like William Wilberforce who led the movement to stop slavery to make the change. But Wilberforce would have been seen as immoral under subjective morality becuase he was going against the consensus of moral views. He was attacked for his stand just like Martin Luther King was in his stand for black civil rights. King was made out to be a communist, traitor and trouble maker to try and discredit his stand. But sometimes medical science proves something is wrong and this changes peoples views.

Umm… You’ve got that backwards. The “powers that be” are the moral objectivist who believe they are right; end of discussion. Because morality is subjective, people were able to disagree with those in power and eventually change their beliefs. This is how slavery was ended, this is how black people were able to get their citizenship rights. Those with subjective moral views were initially seen as outsiders because their views clashed with those moral views that were seen as objective by the powers that be, but as time goes on, eventually they were able to change their hearts.

[/quote] A objective moral position cannot be forced on others as that then puts the view back into the person and makes it subjective. Objective views have to stand independent of humans which means no human can take that objective view and use it for their own benefit. We have people in power now who support subjective moral views and try to enforce this onto society. Look at anti smoking laws stopping people smoking in any building, and even outside them up to 10 metres. Look at the anti drinking lock out laws stopping people drinking in certain areas after midnight. There are 100s of laws forcing some view about something on others under a subjective moral position.

 

[stevevw]

Heat is actually one of the most inefficient ways to raise the kinetic energy of a system. Electromagnetism, mechanical manipulation (pressure) and many other methods produce the waste energy called "heat." But, the point has been missed. This is all i will say.

Not gonna continue - lest I get a warning again.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

No worries good debating with you.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No worries good debating with you.

Likewise (sincerely.)

 

[Ken-1122]

Sorry I was responding to your reply which I though needed more than one answer. Anyway though you may have come up with a hundred scenarios each could be determined as being scientifically good or bad for supporting human wellbeing.

Most issues are determined to be both good AND bad. The problem is determining which out weighs the other. People determine this; not science.

No you are right people science itself does not pass the judgemnet but it does help someone prove that an act is wrong such as the person driving the car fast caused it to lose control and crash into the other car killing the occupant. If science cannot prove that smoking was wrong becuase it has a bad effect on health how did people use medical evicence to sue tobacco companies of billions of dollars. The Tobacco companies would have won the case if it wasnt for the medical science.

The tobacco companies were sued because of the deceptive tactics they used to sell more cigarettes; not due to some new found harm cigarettes caused. Science had nothing to do with it.

The moral views had to change for reason though. I suggest they knew it was wrong for sometime but resisted change becuase it benefited some powerful people who controlled things. It took reformers like William Wilberforce who led the movement to stop slavery to make the change. But Wilberforce would have been seen as immoral under subjective morality becuase he was going against the consensus of moral views. He was attacked for his stand just like Martin Luther King was in his stand for black civil rights. King was made out to be a communist, traitor and trouble maker to try and discredit his stand. But sometimes medical science proves something is wrong and this changes peoples views.

Again; you’ve got it backwards. Objective moral views is the view that we are right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Subjective morality recognizes other views exist and are more likely to consider the possibility that other views might be worth listening to. Subjective moral views is what allowed things to change; Objective moral views are completely against change.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It only took me a few seconds to spot the contradiction when you said "if the person does not get caught". I think you have the wrong idea of objective morality. Just because a person injects a position into their moral system that says no objective claim can prove me wrong does not mean that negates objectivity. Objectivity stands outside the human claims or opinion so anything the person with the moral system says can be proven wrong with science becuase a scientific position is outside human opinion.

It can be shown scientifically that the actions the person with the moral system that claims "everything must benefit them and does not care about the effects on others is wrong". Medical science shows the murder harmed anothers wellbeing independent of that person or anyone else. Science can even show independent of the person and anyone else that their own actions hurt the person with the moral system which makes their own moral system contradict what they claim it was about. That trumps anything they say or anyone else says.

Well, another long post that actually doesn’t address my post. In particular, the things you raise I already addressed in the original post.

Between the two of us, you’re definitely the one that doesn’t seem to understand that potential objectivity in a system doesn’t translate into that system being objective. You’re committing an obvious logical fallacy here. There’s no way for you to objectively show that any given moral system isn’t objective, because there’s nothing in the definition of morality that indicates what system should be used.

Since it doesn’t seem like I’m getting through to you at all, it’s in my best interest to just drop it and hope that everyone else reading this understands what I’m arguing.

 

[stevevw]

Most issues are determined to be both good AND bad. The problem is determining which out weighs the other. People determine this; not science.

Not really, if for example someone says my moral views say I can drive fast though the back streets as a car hoon because it makes me feel tough and respected. But one day the car hoon kills a child who was crossing the road. Who determines if what the hoon did was really right or wrong. The law will say the hoon was wrong because he broke the speed limit. The science can tell by the skid marks on the raod and the damage to the car how fast the hoon was going. The science can match the damage on the car to the injuries on the child to prove that speed was the cause of running down and killing the child.

So despite the hoon saying that speeding was OK science has proven that speeding was not OK. Science determined the hoon was guilty and wrong not you or anyones personal view. Despite the hoon saying speeding was good he ends up going to jail and losing his liberty and living with the guilt of killing a child. Unless he is a uncaring person he will suffer and his moral view is exposed as objectively wrong not through me or anyone but through science.

The tobacco companies were sued because of the deceptive tactics they used to sell more cigarettes; not due to some new found harm cigarettes caused. Science had nothing to do with it.

Science had everything to do with it. The reason the tobacco companies were being deceptive was becuase the science exposed their lies that cigarette smoking was OK to do. If it wasnt for the evidence from medical science there would be no reason fro the tobacco comanies to enguage in decpetive behavior. Their moral position was that smoking was not bad becuase their business was to sell ciigarettes. If they admitted that smoking was bad while selling cigarettes they would have destroyed their own business.

They knew it was bad but it had to take proof for them to admit that it was bad. That proof came from medical science as that was the only powerful evidence that was going to expose them. No ones personal view was going to do it.In fact it was subjective views that smoking was OK that kept the lie going. It was the objective stand from medical science which proved the personal views objectively wrong.

Again; you’ve got it backwards. Objective moral views is the view that we are right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

What do you mean be "we", becuase "we" is about people and that would mean the objective position comes from peoples view. Objective morality is not about peoples views. It is independent of people views.

Subjective morality recognizes other views exist and are more likely to consider the possibility that other views might be worth listening to. Subjective moral views is what allowed things to change; Objective moral views are completely against change.

Objective morality is all about changing people from their subjective view. So if William Wilberfoce said that slavery is wrong and is always wrong he has an objective position. He did not force others to take his view, becuase it wasnt his view. It was like the truth no one can own the truth it is just there independent from humans waiting to be seen. He just said slavery is wrong despite what other people thought. He may have used reasons such as it is bad and against humanity but that was becuase he and others could see the truth that slavery was hurting people, making them cry, bleed, and die. He could see the lie when the slave owner said it is good to have slaves becuase blacks are less human than whites when he seen that blacks could do everything whites could do.

So it was the slave owners who wanted to keep slavery going and people like Wilberforce exposed their lies and opened their eyes to the truth. Just like what Martin Luther King did when he exposed the lies that blacks do not have a right to the same things whites had. He exposed their lies and dthe bad treatmnet the establishment did to blacks. Yes these people had the objective moral position but it was the views of those who ran the system that decided blacks were inferior. Money and power can corrupt people and their bad motives influence their moral position. They wanted to keep blacks surpressed becuase they had ownership of a commodity that produced them money.

People cannot be force to follow the truth. The truth can only be presented and expose the lies and it is up to whether others want to accept the truth or not. The truth is like objective morality, it is presented as the best moral position and it is up to others if they want to accept that.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not really, if for example someone says my moral views say I can drive fast though the back streets as a car hoon because it makes me feel tough and respected. But one day the car hoon kills a child who was crossing the road. Who determines if what the hoon did was really right or wrong. The law will say the hoon was wrong because he broke the speed limit. The science can tell by the skid marks on the raod and the damage to the car how fast the hoon was going. The science can match the damage on the car to the injuries on the child to prove that speed was the cause of running down and killing the child.

So despite the hoon saying that speeding was OK science has proven that speeding was not OK. Science determined the hoon was guilty and wrong not you or anyones personal view. Despite the hoon saying speeding was good he ends up going to jail and losing his liberty and living with the guilt of killing a child. Unless he is a uncaring person he will suffer and his moral view is exposed as objectively wrong not through me or anyone but through science.

In the example you provided, science neither determined the action was wrong nor illegal; the people representing the law used scientific evidence to determine it was wrong and illegal.

Science had everything to do with it. The reason the tobacco companies were being deceptive was becuase the science exposed their lies that cigarette smoking was OK to do. If it wasnt for the evidence from medical science there would be no reason fro the tobacco comanies to enguage in decpetive behavior. Their moral position was that smoking was not bad becuase their business was to sell ciigarettes. If they admitted that smoking was bad while selling cigarettes they would have destroyed their own business.

They knew it was bad but it had to take proof for them to admit that it was bad. That proof came from medical science as that was the only powerful evidence that was going to expose them. No ones personal view was going to do it.In fact it was subjective views that smoking was OK that kept the lie going. It was the objective stand from medical science which proved the personal views objectively wrong.

The Tobacco industry did not claim cigarette smoking was okay; it was accepted decades prior to the lawsuit that they were harmful; they even put labels on their product warning of its harmful effects. Science brought nothing new to this lawsuit; all the scientific evidence concerning the harmful effects of smoking was at least 30 years old.

The tobacco industry was using a cartoon charter (Joe Camel) to advertise their product and it was determined this cartoon character was designed to appeal to kids. This is the deception that caused them to lose; not anything science brought to the table.

What do you mean be "we", becuase "we" is about people and that would mean the objective position comes from peoples view. Objective morality is not about peoples views. It is independent of people views.

The “we” I was referring to were the people who felt their moral views were objectively correct. They claim their views are right independent of anyone who might disagree with them. That means, if they feel slavery is objectively good, no amount of convincing will convince them otherwise because objective truth cannot be wrong; thus they cannot be wrong.

Objective morality is all about changing people from their subjective view.

No; Objective morality is about a single correct view, and all others are wrong.

So if William Wilberfoce said that slavery is wrong and is always wrong he has an objective position.

True! And if those he opposed believed their moral position was the only correct one; thus objective, they would not change it because to change would make them wrong

 

[stevevw]

In the example you provided, science neither determined the action was wrong nor illegal; the people representing the law used scientific evidence to determine it was wrong and illegal.

I agree the science itself cannot determine something is right or wrong. But it can determine the cause and consequences of persons actions. That can be applied to their moral position to see if it stands up to what they said.

The Tobacco industry did not claim cigarette smoking was okay; it was accepted decades prior to the lawsuit that they were harmful; they even put labels on their product warning of its harmful effects. Science brought nothing new to this lawsuit; all the scientific evidence concerning the harmful effects of smoking was at least 30 years old.

The point is no matter how old the data was from medical science that smoking was bad it was the evidence from medical science that proved smoking was bad regardless of someones personal subjective opinion that smoking was OK.

The tobacco industry was using a cartoon charter (Joe Camel) to advertise their product and it was determined this cartoon character was designed to appeal to kids. This is the deception that caused them to lose; not anything science brought to the table.

But the reason that it was regarded as a deception was because it was proven that smoking was bad through science. There would have been no deception if smoking was not shown to be bad.

The “we” I was referring to were the people who felt their moral views were objectively correct. They claim their views are right independent of anyone who might disagree with them. That means, if they feel slavery is objectively good, no amount of convincing will convince them otherwise because objective truth cannot be wrong; thus they cannot be wrong.

The problem with that as far as objective moral positions is concerned is that when you say "they claimed their views were right" that is saying it was their view and not an independent view. I think you will find people were claiming that it was Gods objective morality that they were standing on. But nevertheless it could have ben shown that they were wrong just like it can be shown ISIS is wrong with their interpretation of the bible and that their views were actually their own views hidden behind the claim it was Gods morality.

No; Objective morality is about a single correct view, and all others are wrong.

It is not a view as in a personsview but a moral position that is outside the human mind. That means humans cannot lay claim to it as their own or use it to force others to do things otherwise they inject themselves into the equation. Objective moral position means like truth it can only be pointed out through logical and scientifically reasoned support which is independent from human views and opinions.

True! And if those he opposed believed their moral position was the only correct one; thus objective, they would not change it because to change would make them wrong

Then what was Wilberforces moral position. He could not have had a subjective position becuase he was saying that the societies moral view was wrong and should change. Just becuase those in power say something is morally correct and are not willing to listen to anyone does not mean they have an objective moral position. Look at all the people in societies that claim that they are right and are not willing to change like different religious views like ISIS, the IRA and politcial views. Look at how our modern society says certain things are right or wrong and make others follow them like with moral laws about killing, stealing and raping.

The fact is the people did change their moral position and ended slavery which shows they did not have an objective moral position. It was William Wilberforce andd others with him that went against that societies moral position and said slavery is always wrong and always has been. It was this moral position that was objective and what that society ended up adopting.

 

[stevevw]

Well, another long post that actually doesn’t address my post. In particular, the things you raise I already addressed in the original post.

Between the two of us, you’re definitely the one that doesn’t seem to understand that potential objectivity in a system doesn’t translate into that system being objective. You’re committing an obvious logical fallacy here. There’s no way for you to objectively show that any given moral system isn’t objective, because there’s nothing in the definition of morality that indicates what system should be used.

Since it doesn’t seem like I’m getting through to you at all, it’s in my best interest to just drop it and hope that everyone else reading this understands what I’m arguing.

It is ironic that someone who supports subjectivity and not obectivity can use langauge like "you’re definitely the one that doesn’t seem to understand" and "There’s no way for you to objectively show". These two statements say that you are 100% correct and can never by shown to be wrong and I am 100% wrong and can never be correct. Are they not objective statements that contradict subjectivity. At least I provided some independent scientific evidence for what I said.

 

[stevevw]

There’s no way for you to objectively show that any given moral system isn’t objective, because there’s nothing in the definition of morality that indicates what system should be used.

And does that mean because there is nothing in the dictionary definition of what moral system we should use that we should definitely exclude morality from being objective. The definition can vary from dictionary to dictionary such as

a particular system of values and principles of conduct
This meaning would imply that there is a particular system and others are counted out. So the dictionary meaning is not very informative as to whether it is subjective or objective. This is left to futher investigation as seen by the many sites that further explore morality. So your strict use of the dictionary meaning does not exclude the possibility of futher investigation into whether morality can be objective in its application.

Here is a bit of logic. If a simple thing like the dictionary definition proves there cannot be any moral objectivity then why do the majority of philosophers not only spend life times debating, investigating and defending moral objectivity but the majority support objective morality. It would seem a futile presuit and waste of all that time and effort if they did not think it was possible.

 

[stevevw]

Here is Noam Chomsky one of the great minds of the modern era He is a philosopher, political activist and a cognitive scientist among other things and who has debated people like Michel Foucault. He is speaking on moral relativism and supporting objective morality. He makes a good case about how the use of cultural differences to support moral relativism is wrong because the cultural difference are not that different and culture is not formed by arbitury means. It is actaully a narrow set of beliefs and attitudes that are very specific instructions which form by taking scattered idead and refining them into a specificed culture and are similar throughout all cultures. Morals stem from this and happen the same way. There are limits to how varied morals can be for humans just like there are limits to other biological systems such as vision. Human vision has limits and cannot be adapted to insect vision for example. The idea that moral values/views can have an unlimited range is incoherent.

Noam Chomsky says objective morals have always been there but throughout time societies have only partly understood them and so have had misinformed views like such as slavery. This is mistaken as subjective morality. As time has gone by we have adjusted our morals as we discover and learn the truth more and this has been seen through history. So moral relatism is a part understanding of the objective moral that has always been there and that is why we have moved from thinking slavery, descrimination against blacks, ect was OK towards better moral understanding and treatment. These things have always been wrong we are just waking up to that as time has gone by.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I cant see how a rule such as "don't steal" or "stealing is wrong" can be objective, or rather absolute (objective and universally applicable),

unless its actually true by definition (like "a triangle has three sides"), and as such a law of mathematical ethics

or unless its an axiom, and so wears the mods hat,

and therefore the rule valid in all possible worlds come what may.


Also we know what stealing is, but do we agree on what "wrong" means?

I would argue that form a historical perspective wrong is culturally derived from "contrary to an agent's, or to a group's welfare" albeit in a not so self aware manner. So morals are token of human interests.

Both (agent well being and colllective well being) are difficult to calculate absolutely, so we have to use rules of thumb, and that's what morals such as "don't steel" are: rules of thumb.

This don't make 'em silly though, they're actually quite clever.

 

[stevevw]

Well, another long post that actually doesn’t address my post. In particular, the things you raise I already addressed in the original post.

Between the two of us, you’re definitely the one that doesn’t seem to understand that potential objectivity in a system doesn’t translate into that system being objective. You’re committing an obvious logical fallacy here. There’s no way for you to objectively show that any given moral system isn’t objective, because there’s nothing in the definition of morality that indicates what system should be used.

Since it doesn’t seem like I’m getting through to you at all, it’s in my best interest to just drop it and hope that everyone else reading this understands what I’m arguing.

So I am narrowing down my post so that you can answer specific questions as I genuinely would like to understand your position. Here are the next two questions

If subjective morality is such a common position, then why do you have so much difficulty coming up with examples. Why does this character you have used as an example have to be on the verge of a psychopath to prove your point. He does not care who he kills yet can still compose himself like nothing has happened.

You said this moral system is based on what benefits the person and what does not hurt them. So, what happens when one of the things they claim that does not hurt them is proven to hurt them. Such as your example that they kill someone to get the job and they get caught and lose the job they killed for and go to jail.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[Ken-1122]

The point is no matter how old the data was from medical science that smoking was bad it was the evidence from medical science that proved smoking was bad regardless of someones personal subjective opinion that smoking was OK.

But the reason that it was regarded as a deception was because it was proven that smoking was bad through science. There would have been no deception if smoking was not shown to be bad.

First of all, science never proved smoking was bad any more than they proved sugar, or trans fat are bad. They just provided the data about the harmful effects of smoking and people decided it wasn’t bad enough to make illegal like narcotics, but more harmful than sugar and trans fats thus a warning label should be attached; whereas sugar and trans fats doesn’t require one. Again; science didn’t determine the moral issues associated with smoking, people did

It is not a view as in a personsview but a moral position that is outside the human mind. That means humans cannot lay claim to it as their own or use it to force others to do things otherwise they inject themselves into the equation.

But thats what people do! Why do you think narcotics are illegal? Why do you think prostitution is illegal? People using the law to force their moral opinions on others.

Then what was Wilberforces moral position. He could not have had a subjective position becuase he was saying that the societies moral view was wrong and should change.

Everybody believes their moral position is objective. Wilberforce believed his moral position was objective, and those in charge believed their moral position was objective. The fact that those in charge were able to change their minds on the issue proved everybody’s moral position is subjective.

Just becuase those in power say something is morally correct and are not willing to listen to anyone does not mean they have an objective moral position.

No; it means they believe they have an objective moral position.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It is ironic that someone who supports subjectivity and not obectivity can use langauge like "you’re definitely the one that doesn’t seem to understand" and "There’s no way for you to objectively show".

No one "supports subjectivity". That phrase is nonsensical. I use language that fits the situation, as I did when I wrote the above.

At least I provided some independent scientific evidence for what I said.

No, you provided "scientific evidence" that supports the idea that science can help to determine what's harmful. What you continually fail to realize is that it doesn't support objective morality because valid moral systems don't have to deal with "harm" in the same way.