Understanding Objective Morality

[Halbhh]

she is knowingly doing something objectively wrong

Or, of course, knowingly doing something objectively right. Though more likely in reality it would be knowingly doing something that seems subjectively right, and could be objectively right (see Georgism or the Bible, which use definite objective morals).

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

You must not have encountered too many people with different views on morality if you think other than religion those two positions on morality are the only ones. Some people have a very individual morality that does not take into account religion, science or culture but only personal preference. Some people believe in situational ethics that tend to discount religion, science and culture for pragmatism. Since morality is subjective, one can base one's moral tenets upon whatever one decides to base one's moral tenets on.

Both of the things you mention are really just subsets of what I already said. Whether you have individual morality or situational ethics, they all come down to the same questions'

1. Why am I doing [this] instead of [that]?

2. What are the benefits of doing [this] over [that]?

3. By what standard can I conclude that [this] is better than [that]

Even pragmatism only works if you have something to base it on. If there is no universal moral code, then what--for example--makes rape bad, if it succeeds in providing offspring? You might say 'because it's awful!' or 'it's forcing someone to do something they don't want to do!'-- the problem is, there is nothing outside of religion and culture saying it is better or worse to disregard someone else's well-being or 'feelings'. If we evolved from something more feral as science suggests, there is CERTAINLY not a lot of evidence swaying it one way or the other, once you divorce scientific reason from philosophy.

And then another question; where did culture and religion derive their moral standards from? Obviously God would be number one in my mind, but you can't practically apply that rule to, say, nonbelievers.

Since this is Christian forums including religion in a debate seems to be unavoidable. The culture I live in and the religion I practice are not at all in synch. So to say religion is a byproduct of culture , I would disagree with. Sometimes that is true , sometimes the opposite is true as sometimes the culture is a by product of religion, and sometimes the two are at odds.

Religion is a byproduct of culture; I grew up in a culture that is, the majority, Chrisitan. if I have a child, I'm going to teach them about the Bible and raise them as Christians. Do you not think that other countries do that? One of the primary reasons for the spread of religion is having children and passing on beliefs; not conversion. That's why Islam is growing so fast. Not to mention, you're psychologically going to normalize certain types of behavior if you're exposed to it for a long time(especially if you grew up around it).

Of course, some people get older, disagree with their beliefs and either drop religion or convert to something else; then those people raise their children with their belief system. Some let the child choose what they believe in. Either way, you as an example are an exception and not the general rule, so to say. I can say this with a good amount of confidence, given how many cultures are inclined into different religions(or offshoots)than in other areas with different cultures. I mean, go to Iran and try to tell me that the majority there is not Islamic/Muslim lol

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Yet, of course, most everyone has a religion, just as you point to, even if it is for instance, themselves, or football, or whatever. Since there are endless 'religions' in that sense, but some cloak themselves also as moral in some way, it's interesting how James put it -- Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world -- and here, don't we have a kind of orphan or widow, really?

Unfortunately, that's why I say that it's really hard to have a debate on morality because since in the scientific version of things, morality is highly subjective and based on what will benefit one as a species--it will come down to religion, a byproduct of culture(which...I mean in a way culture is also a kind of byproduct of religion, largely?)and none of us can give 'definitive'(as they put it)proof on which religion is correct and which is not. And if we can't give a definitive answer on what is correct, we cannot say 'hey, follow [x] religion's morals over [y]'s morals!'

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The OP stipulated that objective morality is being assumed so replacing it with individual choice morality does not conform to the hypothetical's premise and does not therefore actually have any relevance to the question being asked.

Are you using absolute morality and subjective morality as equal? Objective morality points to a goal, what is Jane's goal for her morality? That will inform her actions.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Are you using absolute morality and subjective morality as equal? Objective morality points to a goal, what is Jane's goal for her morality? That will inform her actions.

I want to agree...but, wouldn't the fact that it's based on Jane's 'goal' make it subjective? Especially if her 'goal' is different from other people's 'goal's.

Also, objective morality is referring to a universal set of unarguable rules/concepts that are not unique to one person. That's the point of it being 'objective'.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I want to agree...but, wouldn't the fact that it's based on Jane's 'goal' make it subjective? Especially if her 'goal' is different from other people's 'goal's.

The goal is subjective but once a standard (goal) is settled on then all actions can be objectively determined to either be in line with that goal or not.

Also, objective morality is referring to a universal set of unarguable rules/concepts that are not unique to one person. That's the point of it being 'objective'.

That is absolute morality which does not exist in my opinion. Even a Christians morality is objective to Gods subjective morality.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

The goal is subjective but once a standard (goal) is settled on then all actions can be objectively determined to either be in line with that goal or not.

Objectively, for that person. Which, coincidentally, still makes it subjective.

That is absolute morality which does not exist in my opinion. Even a Christians morality is objective to Gods subjective morality.

That's kind of my point. All morality is subjective in nature, so the debate is a little useless in that regard. Although, I think whether or not God's morality is subjective would be up for debate...since, in the context of Christianity, there is only one God. Being the head honcho and all, I suppose that would make his word law above all else.

 

[Halbhh]

The goal is subjective but once a standard (goal) is settled on then all actions can be objectively determined to either be in line with that goal or not.

That is absolute morality which does not exist in my opinion. Even a Christians morality is objective to Gods subjective morality.

It's an interesting question to look closer into, 'objective and subjective'.

I just did a little thought experiment (which I've done before long ago). About trying ascertain some objective aspects of morality.

Consider first the fact: we have a nature, built into our genetics, the characteristics of our human nature as determined by the genes, and those are physically real. The characteristics that all humans then share from this genome have an objective quality, in that they are fixed real attributes. Some of the basic characteristics include a drive to find and eat food, and a drive to reproduce. We have an inbuilt objective set of goals, which are various things needed to survive, live, reproduce.

Next, it's not hard to then find out by experience whether certain rules of living -- laws -- support or work against those inbuilt objective goals. ("goals" = built in needs, ala Maslow's hierarchy of needs)

Example: Do not murder. If this is broken it degrades our accomplishing our goals. If it is followed, it allows a chance to accomplish our goals.

With some logic and experience or careful thought experiment based on experience, one can see (or test) whether various rules/laws work well.

Example: Do not steal or defraud. What if everyone followed this law? What if most people broke this law?

A way to test any law/principle in thought experiment is available: Consider 2 alternative situations: If people widely followed the candidate law, would that then aid/help accomplish our innate goals, or would that work against our innate goals?

If people following the rule/law aids accomplishing our objective set of innate goals, and if breaking it harms our innate set of goals, then we have an law that objectively supports objective goals.

Next, we can learn by reflecting on history that human cooperation is very effective for accomplishing our mutual objective innate goals also. Groups that cooperate thrive over those that do not.

With time and effort you could even see, I found, the objective morality then in the summary of the intent of law as Christ stated it:
"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law..." (Matthew chapter 7)

Objectively, for that person. Which, coincidentally, still makes it subjective.



That's kind of my point. All morality is subjective in nature, so the debate is a little useless in that regard. Although, I think whether or not God's morality is subjective would be up for debate...since, in the context of Christianity, there is only one God. Being the head honcho and all, I suppose that would make his word law above all else.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes, the documents prove he owns the land so if she continues farming it then she is knowingly doing something objectively wrong, since there's objective documentation to prove it. No?

Objectively unlawful, not objectively morally wrong. They don’t equate to each other, unless you think it’s morally wrong to smoke pot in Kansas and simultaneously not morally wrong to smoke it in Colorado.

 

[Chriliman]

Objectively unlawful, not objectively morally wrong. They don’t equate to each other, unless you think it’s morally wrong to smoke pot in Kansas and simultaneously not morally wrong to smoke it in Colorado.

I would say it's morally wrong to smoke pot where you're not suppose to smoke pot.

You don't think some or all established laws are based on our morals? I see the distinction you're making between laws and morals, but I think our morals inform our laws and both can be objective in the sense that they actually exist apart from ourselves(in others), even if some may change over time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Has Bob introduces an objective source of right and wrong for Jane to consider?

No, it is objective evidence, but it really doesn't provide any source of morals.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let’s consider Jane. Jane wondered across some land and decided to live there and farm it. She never purchased the land and has never considered whether it’s right or wrong to farm the land. Bob arrives and shows her documentation proving he owns the land and tells her to stop farming it.

Has Bob introduced an objective source of right and wrong for Jane to consider?

Nope.
Even if he owns it, is it right or wrong to stop a person from growing food for themself?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I would say it's morally wrong to smoke pot where you're not suppose to smoke pot.

And I would disagree. How do we find out who’s correct if either of us could be objectively “correct”

I see the distinction you're making between laws and morals, but I think our morals inform our laws and both can be objective in the sense that they actually exist apart from ourselves(in others), even if some may change over time.

That’s your opinion... that you haven’t provided evidence for.

 

[muichimotsu]

I mean, if we're being technical, there isn't really ANY 'objective morality'. We just...you know, do what our culture teaches us. Or, scientifically, whatever benefits us as a species.

So...ethical subjectivism as a meta ethical theory, more specifically, divine command theory? I've only really looked into it a bit and it's complex in its own right with 3 different types of meta ethical theory analyzing particular aspects of ethics, but that certainly sounds like you acknowledge that objective morality is practically an oxymoron in that if it was independent of us, it would defeat the purpose of our being able to apply it

 

[Ken-1122]

but I think our morals inform our laws and both can be objective in the sense that they actually exist apart from ourselves(in others), even if some may change over time.

I disagree; laws are objective, morals are subjective. In order for something to be objectively true, you have to be able to demonstrate it as true. Laws can be demonstrated as legal or illegal, morals be demonstrated as right or wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I want to use the term “objective” in the sense that the reality of a thing is there whether you like it or not.

Let’s consider Jane. Jane wondered across some land and decided to live there and farm it. She never purchased the land and has never considered whether it’s right or wrong to farm the land. Bob arrives and shows her documentation proving he owns the land and tells her to stop farming it.

Has Bob introduces an objective source of right and wrong for Jane to consider?

Who authorizes the documentation? Bob?

 

[muichimotsu]

Who authorizes the documentation? Bob?

What if Bob's a notary public? Not that Jane would necessarily understand that? The whole notion here conflates morality with legality, but they're at best overlapping

 

[Speedwell]

I do not see that an actual legal issue has even been presented. Guy shows up with some papers he claims are legal documents. Why should Jane believe they are genuine or that they are enforceable or that the supposed issuing agency has any real authority?

I said a legal issue was raised (not solved--all of your questions are part of a legal solution) rather than a moral issue.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What if Bob's a notary public? Not that Jane would necessarily understand that? The whole notion here conflates morality with legality, but they're at best overlapping

Why should I care if Bob is a notary public? Does his office have authority simply because he thinks it should?

 

[muichimotsu]

Why should I care if Bob is a notary public? Does his office have authority simply because he thinks it should?

No, a notary public office and such would have authority based on common understanding of what that entails, the same way that we'd consider a notarized contract signed by both people valid in application even if one person doesn't like it