The source of moral obligation

[Archaeopteryx]

I think that there are objective truths, but not when it comes to morality. For example, someone here might feel that homosexuality is immoral, but others might not see it that way. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuals legally marrying, but others might see it as 'immoral.'

Who is right? Objectively, neither is 'right,' but we both feel that we are...

There's only subjective morality. But, having said that, there are things we can agree upon that are bad for society as a whole...this is how laws are made.

I'm not sure there can ever be such a thing as objective morality, because where would the objectivity come from, to begin with?

The objective consequences that our actions have on other people.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think that there are objective truths, but not when it comes to morality. For example, someone here might feel that homosexuality is immoral, but others might not see it that way. I don't see anything wrong with homosexuals legally marrying, but others might see it as 'immoral.'

Who is right? Objectively, neither is 'right,' but we both feel that we are...

There's only subjective morality. But, having said that, there are things we can agree upon that are bad for society as a whole...this is how laws are made.

I'm not sure there can ever be such a thing as objective morality, because where would the objectivity come from, to begin with?

I agree! Examples of objective truths are; 1+1=2 or water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Those claims are objectively true and can be demonstrated as such. Morality is a different story.

Ken

 

[quatona]

Look at this statement closely:

There IS no objective truth about right and wrong; .....

You say there is no objective truth about right and wrong. But is that true?

Is it true that there is no truth about right and wrong?

This is what is referred to as a self-refuting statement.

In his Introduction to Logic, Harry Gensler defines a self-refuting statement as “[A] statement that makes negative claims so sweeping that it ends up denying itself.”

You are trying this parlor trick time and again even though it has been explained to you how it´s fallacious. That´s quite frustrating.
"There is no truth about moral right and wrong" (which was clearly the meaning of the statement in the given context) isn´t a moral statement, and therefore isn´t self-refuting.

In other words, it results when an argument or position is undercut by its own criteria.

That is what I was getting at sir.

...and you were wrong.

 

[stevevw]

To claim I BELIEVE I know the truth is pointing to a subjective truth

But thats not what you said. You made a definite statemnet about me being wrong. It wasn't you believed I was wrong you said I was wrong in an affirmative way. Thats the thing people can always come back to this subjective view like its so inclusive and it doesn't make any statements about anything. So long as its not specific no one can ever be pinned down and we are not accountable or made responsible. I really think this is the true reason for all this relativism and pluralism. But in reality we all believe in objectiveness because we naturally use it. We know that there has to be some sort of ultimate truth to things because otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Its like that example some use with the guy who wrote a paper on moral right and wrongs. He said we have to accept each persons different set of moral values because its all subjective and relative and we cant judge anyone elses moral values because they have their own set. He handed his work into the teacher in a red folder. So the teacher marked his paper with and F. The student got upset and asked why he was marked so low. The teacher said he didn't like the colour of his folder so I marked it down. After all as you said we all see things differently and I happen to think the colour red is immoral according to my moral values so I had to mark you down on that.

In order for morality to be considered "objective" you must be able to demonstrate it. Example; we both agree that murder it wrong; but you can't call it objective wrong; because it can't be demonstrated as wrong. If it were objective wrong, it would apply to animals, insects and all creatures; not just humans. Exterminating a million Cockroaches is considered a good thing; exterminating a million humans is considered genocide. Do you get my point?

Thats where people go wrong. they see the different circumstances that are applied to each situation as a new version of that moral so they think that the original moral has been changed itself thus making a new moral for killing. But murder is murder. But if there are mitigating circumstances that will allow for a good reason to breach that moral, IE cockroaches spread disease and then can cause sickness and possible worse so it is good to rid an environment of disease carrying insects then this is a justified action under the same original moral. It hasn't changed the moral or allowed killing for no good reason. It has merely allowed a breach of the original moral. The original moral remains the same. So killing is still wrong no matter if its for insects, different cultures, different times and circumstances.

Jesus depended on other people to speak for him as well! As you know; Jesus never wrote anything down. Jesus preached for a few years or so then many years after he died various people (adding denying, compromising the truth) began to write and claim he said and did this or that; then a thousand years later a bunch of other men (adding, denying, compromising the truth) decided which of these writings are credible and which ones are not. As I said before, God doesn't speak for himself; he let's other men do it, and you tend to assume when other men speak for God they add, deny, and compromise the truth! I'm a little surprised you believe this stuff?

Well what is written down for what is claimed He said is consistent throughout the New testament. The words that are written in red which indicate what He said are clear and simple. They are in line with what Jesus taught. The message about salvation is simple and in line with what Jesus said. Those who spoke for themselves in the bible such as Paul in his letters to the church are consistent and clear with what Is claimed by Jesus. So whether it was made up or decided to be included over 30 years or 1000 years its all consistent, simple and clear. Theres no conspiracy as if its some sort of secret formula that states anything bad or controversial. Its just a simple message that makes good sense and promotes love and hope.

It seems ridiculous that a bunch of people from different walks of life, different places and different times who all seem to be decent good people would make up some plot to trick the world for no good reason. At the end of the day there was a man named Jesus who was a preacher. Now He must have said some things and so people would know some of this and wright it down. So at the very least we would have to give some benefit of the doubt that all of this effort and writing which has stood the test of time must have some of it attributed to Jesus even if people think its a bunch of silly sayings. Theres just to many people and to much history for people to wright it all off as lies and myths.

And how do you know what Jesus actually taught? The only thing you know is what a bunch of men claimed he taught. How do you know these men were not adding, denying, and compromising the truth?

So there was a man named Jesus who taught and preached, He was even crucified for what He said. But no one bothered to wright down some of His words or remember them and thought that they could do a better Job. I think its easy to deny all the time. We may as well say all historians didn't say anything because it wasn't worth writing anything down. I just cant believe that a person that had such an impact on Christians would not have anything recorded. You may say people added some things but I cant believe they never recorded one single word He said. The question should be why wouldn't they not record something He said. There is no good reason why not. I think people get into these conspiracy theories to much and everything is questioned to the point where its questioned right out of history. Yet there are non biblical history that hasn't got anywhere near as much written or written near the time it happened that is accepted and not questioned like this.

Yes! Truth is not objective; it's subjective.

But the meaning of truth is that there is but one truth. That is what truth is. To say its subjective is contradictory.

There is no objective truth.

That doesn't make sense. You saying there is no truth is making a statemnet of truth.

How is it self refuting?

By the fact that you are claiming truth is not objective. Is saying that truth is subjective a true statemnet. If its a subjective statemnet then I will say that truth is objective. If you say I'm wrong then you are claiming the truth which is an objective statemnet. Now I'm really confused.
The Law of non-contradiction demonstrates: Lets suppose it doesn't. Lets suppose absolute truth doesn't exist.
We have then created a scenario where truth both does and does not exist simultaneously.

It would be "absolutely true" that "there is no absolute truth". Which directly violates the law of non-contradiction. A very basic law of logic. We must conclude that true exists and it objective. This is the foundation of epistemology. If truth did not exist, knowledge of it being so would be impossible.

 

[Conscious Z]

The objective consequences that our actions have on other people.

That is not the same as an objective truth that those actions are bad. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"....people have been trying for centuries, and I doubt you'll be the one to finally figure out how.

 

[Conscious Z]

But thats not what you said. You made a definite statemnet about me being wrong. It wasn't you believed I was wrong you said I was wrong in an affirmative way. Thats the thing people can always come back to this subjective view like its so inclusive and it doesn't make any statements about anything. So long as its not specific no one can ever be pinned down and we are not accountable or made responsible. I really think this is the true reason for all this relativism and pluralism. But in reality we all believe in objectiveness because we naturally use it. We know that there has to be some sort of ultimate truth to things because otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Its like that example some use with the guy who wrote a paper on moral right and wrongs. He said we have to accept each persons different set of moral values because its all subjective and relative and we cant judge anyone elses moral values because they have their own set. He handed his work into the teacher in a red folder. So the teacher marked his paper with and F. The student got upset and asked why he was marked so low. The teacher said he didn't like the colour of his folder so I marked it down. After all as you said we all see things differently and I happen to think the colour red is immoral according to my moral values so I had to mark you down on that.

Thats where people go wrong. they see the different circumstances that are applied to each situation as a new version of that moral so they think that the original moral has been changed itself thus making a new moral for killing. But murder is murder. But if there are mitigating circumstances that will allow for a good reason to breach that moral, IE cockroaches spread disease and then can cause sickness and possible worse so it is good to rid an environment of disease carrying insects then this is a justified action under the same original moral. It hasn't changed the moral or allowed killing for no good reason. It has merely allowed a breach of the original moral. The original moral remains the same. So killing is still wrong no matter if its for insects, different cultures, different times and circumstances.

Well what is written down for what is claimed He said is consistent throughout the New testament. The words that are written in red which indicate what He said are clear and simple. They are in line with what Jesus taught. The message about salvation is simple and in line with what Jesus said. Those who spoke for themselves in the bible such as Paul in his letters to the church are consistent and clear with what Is claimed by Jesus. So whether it was made up or decided to be included over 30 years or 1000 years its all consistent, simple and clear. Theres no conspiracy as if its some sort of secret formula that states anything bad or controversial. Its just a simple message that makes good sense and promotes love and hope.

It seems ridiculous that a bunch of people from different walks of life, different places and different times who all seem to be decent good people would make up some plot to trick the world for no good reason. At the end of the day there was a man named Jesus who was a preacher. Now He must have said some things and so people would know some of this and wright it down. So at the very least we would have to give some benefit of the doubt that all of this effort and writing which has stood the test of time must have some of it attributed to Jesus even if people think its a bunch of silly sayings. Theres just to many people and to much history for people to wright it all off as lies and myths.

So there was a man named Jesus who taught and preached, He was even crucified for what He said. But no one bothered to wright down some of His words or remember them and thought that they could do a better Job. I think its easy to deny all the time. We may as well say all historians didn't say anything because it wasn't worth writing anything down. I just cant believe that a person that had such an impact on Christians would not have anything recorded. You may say people added some things but I cant believe they never recorded one single word He said. The question should be why wouldn't they not record something He said. There is no good reason why not. I think people get into these conspiracy theories to much and everything is questioned to the point where its questioned right out of history. Yet there are non biblical history that hasn't got anywhere near as much written or written near the time it happened that is accepted and not questioned like this.

But the meaning of truth is that there is but one truth. That is what truth is. To say its subjective is contradictory.

That doesn't make sense. You saying there is no truth is making a statemnet of truth.

By the fact that you are claiming truth is not objective. Is saying that truth is subjective a true statemnet. If its a subjective statemnet then I will say that truth is objective. If you say I'm wrong then you are claiming the truth which is an objective statemnet. Now I'm really confused.
The Law of non-contradiction demonstrates: Lets suppose it doesn't. Lets suppose absolute truth doesn't exist.
We have then created a scenario where truth both does and does not exist simultaneously.

It would be "absolutely true" that "there is no absolute truth". Which directly violates the law of non-contradiction. A very basic law of logic. We must conclude that true exists and it objective. This is the foundation of epistemology. If truth did not exist, knowledge of it being so would be impossible.

Steve,
I believe you are misunderstanding the claim of moral subjectivists. Subjectivism is not the position that says "What's true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me." No one I have ever met actually believes such a silly thing. Rather, subjectivism simply holds that ethical claims are propositions (which means they are either true or false), and that the source of their truth value is intrinsic, or dependent upon the subject (as opposed to some objective fact about the world). Ethical subjectivists can still believe their position is the right one and that other positions are just flat wrong. There are several ways this is possible, but one common argument is that of the ideal observer. It simply posits the hypothetical existence of some ideal moral observer. This person would have perfect understanding of all pertinent facts. What would that person think about a given moral conundrum? That is a subjectivist argument, and it strangely sounds similar to the WWJD craze from the 90's.

To be honest, a lot of the arguments for morality having "objective" truths in this thread have actually been subjectivist arguments. Arguing for some sort of psychological norm that would produce proper moral reasoning is a VERY subjectivist argument.

I should add that it is possible for an argument to be an objective relativism argument. Yes, I know that sounds contradictory, but it is not. All "relativism" means is that a given proposition can have different truth value depending on who is uttering the proposition. In other words, relativism would hold that "Suffering is good" might be true when I say it but false when you say it. If the reason these truth values differ, however, is due to something outside of the mind of the speaker, then we have objective relativism. All "objective" means is that something exists outside the mind of the speaker.

 

[Conscious Z]

Last thought (for now) on subjectivism: Most Christians are moral subjectivists. Seriously. Most Christians believe that moral truth is derived from God's thoughts on a matter. If God calls X sin, then X is sin. That is subjectivism because 1) moral truth exists, and 2) its truth value is mind-dependent (in this case, the mind of god).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That is not the same as an objective truth that those actions are bad. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"....people have been trying for centuries, and I doubt you'll be the one to finally figure out how.

Ok gimme your life savings....
You ghave to acdmit that you at least feel your interests are important enough not to. But if there is importance, there is "mattering" and therefore value of some kind. Where in any case does monetary value come from if not grounded in more basic truths?

 

[Conscious Z]

Ok gimme your life savings....
You ghave to acdmit that you at least feel your interests are important enough not to. But if there is importance, there is "mattering" and therefore value of some kind. Where in any case does monetary value come from if not grounded in more basic truths?

Me valuing X does not entail that there is some absolute truth that X is good. Every ethical non-cognitivist in the world would admit that people have strong sentiments regarding things they value. Not a single one of them would agree that there is such a thing as a moral obligation.

Value is a product of desire. Desire has nothing to do with absolute oughts.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So an ought has to be absolute to have any moral relavance?

Cant you say "as a rule of thumb health is (as a experiential phenomenon) better, therefore it ought to be chosen by me as an individual"? In another language, health is desirable.

Thats my view at least. Very basic, but seems valid. It seems like it would almost be so hardwired into us, as a vital imperative, if the complexities of the cultural world (faith, science, plato, aristotle etc all pulling this way and that) didnt confuse us so much.

 

[stevevw]

Steve,
I believe you are misunderstanding the claim of moral subjectivists. Subjectivism is not the position that says "What's true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me." No one I have ever met actually believes such a silly thing. Rather, subjectivism simply holds that ethical claims are propositions (which means they are either true or false), and that the source of their truth value is intrinsic, or dependent upon the subject (as opposed to some objective fact about the world). Ethical subjectivists can still believe their position is the right one and that other positions are just flat wrong. There are several ways this is possible, but one common argument is that of the ideal observer. It simply posits the hypothetical existence of some ideal moral observer. This person would have perfect understanding of all pertinent facts. What would that person think about a given moral conundrum? That is a subjectivist argument, and it strangely sounds similar to the WWJD craze from the 90's.

To be honest, a lot of the arguments for morality having "objective" truths in this thread have actually been subjectivist arguments. Arguing for some sort of psychological norm that would produce proper moral reasoning is a VERY subjectivist argument.

I should add that it is possible for an argument to be an objective relativism argument. Yes, I know that sounds contradictory, but it is not. All "relativism" means is that a given proposition can have different truth value depending on who is uttering the proposition. In other words, relativism would hold that "Suffering is good" might be true when I say it but false when you say it. If the reason these truth values differ, however, is due to something outside of the mind of the speaker, then we have objective relativism. All "objective" means is that something exists outside the mind of the speaker.

No wonder people get confused. But why cant morals truths be like something we look at in maths. 2 + 2 equals 4. That is a fact and that is the truth. hurting babies is bad. That is a fact and that is the truth. When you say that yo pretend to have a moral observer who has perfect understanding of all the pertinent facts I think of God. He knows all so He is in the position to judge. So He is in the position to hold the objective morals we need to live by. In this way we can then have a moral truth to guide us instead of being subject to changable views that seem to undermine any chance of finding some consistency and unity.

I wasn't saying subjectivity was stating what someone believed was true overall, but it is true for them. I understand it as just being a view that person has which is not making any statements about what they believe is true or false. Its just what they believe and it's their personal view. Each person will have their own view. So subjectivity is more about the subject or person than about the moral itself. But when a person then goes on to insist that their belief or view about something is correct and yours is not or they claim that what you believe is incorrect then they are making a definite statemnet about it and being more objective. They are sort of claiming they know something more beyond each persons personal view or in this case my view because they state that my view is wrong. That is what I was referring to.

 

[Conscious Z]

So an ought has to be absolute to have any moral relavance?

Cant you say "as a rule of thumb health is (as a experiential phenomenon) better, therefore it ought to be chosen by me as an individual"? In another language, health is desirable.

Thats my view at least. Very basic, but seems valid. It seems like it would almost be so hardwired into us, as a vital imperative, if the complexities of the cultural world (faith, science, plato, aristotle etc all pulling this way and that) didnt confuse us so much.

What you are describing is morality as a system of conditionals. "If health is experientially better, then it ought to be chosen." That works well with things like health preferences (which aren't actually moral issues of any substance), but it starts to get shaky for most people in real cases. Imagine if I said "If killing puppies for fun is experientially better, then it ought to be chosen." That wouldn't jive for most people wishing to defend moral obligations because an obligation is supposed to be a motivation that exists independent of our own desires.

Morality as desire is a morality devoid of obligations.

 

[stevevw]

Last thought (for now) on subjectivism: Most Christians are moral subjectivists. Seriously. Most Christians believe that moral truth is derived from God's thoughts on a matter. If God calls X sin, then X is sin. That is subjectivism because 1) moral truth exists, and 2) its truth value is mind-dependent (in this case, the mind of god).

But your bringing the mind of God down into a human level. The very reason we can affix moral objectivity to God is because His mind is above ours. He is the creator of our minds and bodies and therefore morals. He gave the laws to Moses and He judged and punished those who were sinful. He will sit in Judgement in the end over us all through Jesus. So God is different and not subjective because He is above being the subject, He is the creator and teacher. That is why I say that it is important to have some objectivity with morals. Its a bit like a judge in court. There is a law and we know what it is. Shop lifting is wrong no matter how you view it. The judge in the court will deem it wrong and give out your punishment and there's no two ways about it. But with subjectivity the person can then go into court and state that he disagrees with your view that shop lifting is wrong. He believes that material processions are for everyone and that consumerism is actually a bad thing that creates poverty.

 

[Conscious Z]

That is a fact and that is the truth. hurting babies is bad. That is a fact and that is the truth. When you say that yo pretend to have a moral observer who has perfect understanding of all the pertinent facts I think of God. He knows all so He is in the position to judge. So He is in the position to hold the objective morals we need to live by.

You're misusing the word "objective." If god is the source of moral right and wrong, then morality is subjective, not objective, as moral truth would depend on a mental attitude (god's) rather than some non-mental fact that is "out" in the world.

In this way we can then have a moral truth to guide us instead of being subject to changable views that seem to undermine any chance of finding some consistency and unity.

A lot of moral positions don't change. There is disagreement, but disagreement is not the same as change. Everyone choosing one system to adhere to would eliminate disagreement regardless of the system chosen, so that isn't a special selling point for "morality from god."

I wasn't saying subjectivity was stating what someone believed was true overall, but it is true for them. I understand it as just being a view that person has which is not making any statements about what they believe is true or false.

That's not subjectivism. Subjectivists make true/false claims just like any other cognitivist. I think you have probably listened to too many pastors try to do philosophy.

Its just what they believe and it's their personal view. Each person will have their own view. So subjectivity is more about the subject or person than about the moral itself. But when a person then goes on to insist that their belief or view about something is correct and yours is not or they claim that what you believe is incorrect then they are making a definite statemnet about it and being more objective.

Again, you are misusing the terms "subjective" and "objective." "Objective" does not mean something is actually right or actually wrong. It means its actual rightness or actual wrongness is determined by something other than a fact about a mental attitude. "Subjective" means its rightness or wrongness depends on a mental attitude. Pointing to god as a moral authority is a subjectivist claim.

 

[Conscious Z]

But your bringing the mind of God down into a human level. The very reason we can affix moral objectivity to God is because His mind is above ours. He is the creator of our minds and bodies and therefore morals. He gave the laws to Moses and He judged and punished those who were sinful. He will sit in Judgement in the end over us all through Jesus. So God is different and not subjective because He is above being the subject, He is the creator and teacher.

It doesn't matter if his mind is above ours, that is still subjectivism. By definition, if you believe that morality depends on someone's mental state or attitude, you are a subjectivist. The "ideal observer" is probably the most common argument in subjectivism, and god is the epitome of the ideal observer.

Again, you are misusing the word "subjective." It doesn't mean there is no actual truth to the matter. It is only a claim about the origins of that truth. If you believe the origins are god, then you're a subjectivist.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Last thought (for now) on subjectivism: Most Christians are moral subjectivists. Seriously. Most Christians believe that moral truth is derived from God's thoughts on a matter. If God calls X sin, then X is sin. That is subjectivism because 1) moral truth exists, and 2) its truth value is mind-dependent (in this case, the mind of god).

Correct. I am an ethical subjectivist because I am a Divine Command Theory adherent.

 

[stevevw]

You're misusing the word "objective." If god is the source of moral right and wrong, then morality is subjective, not objective, as moral truth would depend on a mental attitude (god's) rather than some non-mental fact that is "out" in the world.

But who said God is even a person like you are trying to make him in human terms. The bible says that Gods laws are written on our hearts. So its more like its an inbuilt thing that has a entity of its own. Its not just restricted to God. Jesus was the same and the holy spirit also portrays the same qualities. When we are born again we take on this spirit of God. So its more like a state then a one person thing. It implies a law that is in creation and not just in God. Its like the word of God which was said to create everything. That word became flesh in Jesus. So its like its a state or entity that has a life of its own yet is not restricted to the shell of a person like your trying to make God be. Its the state of our conscience which has Gods laws imprinted on it just like our bodies have the code of genetics imprinted in it. Except because I believe we have a spiritual aspect the Gods morals are a code that is printed in our conscience in a spiritual sense. So its not a chemical reaction but its a spiritual connection we have with God.

A lot of moral positions don't change. There is disagreement, but disagreement is not the same as change. Everyone choosing one system to adhere to would eliminate disagreement regardless of the system chosen, so that isn't a special selling point for "morality from god."

I believe we all know of Gods laws now anyway. We just deny them or corrupt them or substitute them with man made versions. But they all have the basic truths of Gods morals mixed in with them to varying degrees. The obvious ones are like the big ones like killing and rape and stealing. They are pretty well common in all versions. But its the allowances that become the compromises of the man made versions. They are all just twists and justifications away from Gods truths. We would still disagree even if we had the one set of moral truths because its not just about what set of morals. Its also about our sinful natures and that even though we do know the truth we want to break that law anyway. To do that we need to justify our actions. So we make up our own versions to give us the go ahead.

That's not subjectivism. Subjectivists make true/false claims just like any other cognitivist. I think you have probably listened to too many pastors try to do philosophy.

Yes but its true to them only. So its saying more about them and their view, their truth that whether the moral they are giving their view on is actually absolutely true or not.

Again, you are misusing the terms "subjective" and "objective." "Objective" does not mean something is actually right or actually wrong. It means its actual rightness or actual wrongness is determined by something other than a fact about a mental attitude. "Subjective" means its rightness or wrongness depends on a mental attitude. Pointing to god as a moral authority is a subjectivist claim.

This is my understanding in which I have been saying.
Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

 

[Conscious Z]

This is my understanding in which I have been saying.
Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

No, that is simply not what those words mean. You are not properly understanding what moral subjectivism and moral objectivism are.

You are defining relativism and universalism, respectively.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is my understanding in which I have been saying.
Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you that this is a misunderstanding of ethical subjectivism. Yet you persistently repeat the same misunderstanding over and over as though no one has called you on it.

 

[Freodin]

Correct. I am an ethical subjectivist because I am a Divine Command Theory adherent.

Then, if I may give back the question you asked in your last response to me: What are these moral concepts grounded in?