Understanding Objective Morality

[Kaon]

I get what you're saying, but doesn't that mean no one can actually be correct/right(or wrong for that matter) about anything?

If I recognize correctness is someone else, that means their correctness is objective to me, even though it may be subjective to them.

Now you are talking about several different things. Correctness is not synonymous with objectivity, because to be wise, and, therefore closer to being right/true, you need a measure beyond simple objectivity (e.g. Solomon with the conflict of the division of the baby as an example).

"Correctness" for humans is abysmally pathetic; we have no idea what is "correct" because we are carnality. We kill and lie for fun.

 

[Chriliman]

Now you are talking about several different things. Correctness is not synonymous with objectivity, because to be wise, and, therefore closer to being right/true, you need a measure beyond simple objectivity (e.g. Solomon with the conflict of the division of the baby as an example).

"Correctness" for humans is abysmally pathetic; we have no idea what is "correct" because we are carnality. We kill and lie for fun.

Okay, well I believe we're capable of actually being correct about things. Thanks for your engagement in the discussion

 

[durangodawood]

Why and which human?

I dont think "why" is the question. Its more like: thats how it works. We discover truths about what makes life good, and what makes it miserable.

As for what humans: its for typical humans. I'm going to guess 95% of us. If youre born (as opposed to conditioned) different such that you require the suffering of others for your own well being. Well, youre out of luck. The rest of us are against you.

 

[durangodawood]

Kind of, but the origin from whence legal authority is created in the U.S. is beside the point. The OP is set in a social vacuum and is very much hypothetical as far as I can tell.

One doesnt pull a property deed out of a social vacuum.

 

[Kaon]

Okay, well I believe we're capable of actually being correct about things. Thanks for your engagement in the discussion

We can certainly agree to disagree. I consider this more philosophy anyway (very open to answers).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One doesnt pull a property deed out of a social vacuum.

So, would it be morally wrong if I ignore the asserted value of the property deed that another person pulls and waives in my face?

 

[durangodawood]

So, would it be morally wrong if I ignore the asserted value of the property deed that another person pulls and waives in my face?

I said it has legal value, forgery issues notwithstanding.

 

[Chriliman]

So, would it be morally wrong if I ignore the asserted value of the property deed that another person pulls and waives in my face?

Wouldn’t you say you have a moral responsibility to at least determine whether they actually own the property or not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wouldn’t you say you have a moral responsibility to at least determine whether they actually own the property or not?

As I indicated to another person above, I think your scenario requires moral interaction both on the part of Bob and Jane, not just by one or the other. You're OP scenario is indeed thoughtful, but for the most part, it's open to a spectrum of interpretations as to its legal, moral and social setting. I kind of find it funny that some folks read it and just assume that where Bob and Jane are concerned, we must be talking about the good ol' U. S. of A.

 

[muichimotsu]

I have often wondered what point of reference an atheist/agnostic uses to determine right from wrong.

Human wellbeing and dignity based on empathy and compassion, recognizing that we have to balance rights in a basic sense between our ability to exercise them and preventing them from infringing on the rights of others in a passive sense.

If the point of reference is inflexible, it doesn't make it more authoritative, just totalitarian, unwilling to consider that demonstrably, context matters in considering the moral implications of even the same action, like killing someone who is trying to kill you versus killing someone who isn't bothering you at all. One is self defense, one is murder

 

[muichimotsu]

Why and which human?

1) Because humans desire wellbeing as entities with both sapience and sentience and 2) all humans as best we can balance free exercise of actions with preventing infringement of passive rights we acknowledge humanity to have in order to protect wellbeing as a natural good.

 

[Steve97]

Human wellbeing and dignity based on empathy and compassion, recognizing that we have to balance rights in a basic sense between our ability to exercise them and preventing them from infringing on the rights of others in a passive sense.

If the point of reference is inflexible, it doesn't make it more authoritative, just totalitarian, unwilling to consider that demonstrably, context matters in considering the moral implications of even the same action, like killing someone who is trying to kill you versus killing someone who isn't bothering you at all. One is self defense, one is murder

"Human well being and dignity based on empathy and compassion..." How do we know those are "good" without a point of reference?

 

[Steve97]

Human well being.

How do we know that human well being is good?

 

[muichimotsu]

"Human well being and dignity based on empathy and compassion..." How do we know those are "good" without a point of reference?

The point of reference is human experience: you think someone's going to be better off suffering indefinitely rather than having wellbeing in some general sense? That's not claiming that perfect goodness is the standard at all, but goodness in a sense that is generally universal in the understanding: mental, physical, emotional wellness.

It's not a simple explanation, unlike what you'd get if you just appeal to God's commands and maybe make exceptions because someone points out contradictions in the interpretation or otherwise would put you in conflict with any reasonable society (no abortion-except in cases of rape or incest for an example of making the exceptions even if it means shirking the fundamentalist aspects in Christianity)

 

[muichimotsu]

How do we know that human well being is good?

Because we're humans and our general experience suggests that we'd rather not suffer needlessly, even if suffering can be argued as a part of our existence that offers the contrast to wellbeing. If you're looking for a standard outside human reason and experience, you're being unrealistic, because we necessarily look through that filter, subject based as it is, which is not the same as subjective as synonymous with relative

 

[Larniavc]

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?

Not right or wrong, but it is legal.

 

[durangodawood]

How do we know that human well being is good?

Hmm. Maybe it is good to be sick, hungry, unloved, etc. Let me think about that.....

 

[Speedwell]

As I indicated to another person above, I think your scenario requires moral interaction both on the part of Bob and Jane, not just by one or the other. You're OP scenario is indeed thoughtful, but for the most part, it's open to a spectrum of interpretations as to its legal, moral and social setting. I kind of find it funny that some folks read it and just assume that where Bob and Jane are concerned, we must be talking about the good ol' U. S. of A.

No, that's just a working assumption for those of us who regard it as a legal issue. But law regarding property rights in the US did not spring de novo from the brow of George Washington and are similar to those in many other legal systems, having existed since ancient times.

Both Bob and Jane may have a legitimate legal claim to the land, whatever country you want to put them in. Until those claims are resolved there can be no moral issue.

 

[muichimotsu]

Hmm. Maybe it is good to be sick, hungry, unloved, etc. Let me think about that.....

It's almost like when they have a goal that's such they don't have to question it that one can justify moral atrocities because it's "God's plan"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, that's just a working assumption for those of us who regard it as a legal issue. But law regarding property rights in the US did not spring de novo from the brow of George Washington and are similar to those in many other legal systems, having existed since ancient times.

Both Bob and Jane may have a legitimate legal claim to the land, whatever country you want to put them in. Until those claims are resolved there can be no moral issue.

I've read differently elsewhere. Sorry to maintain disagreement with you. I'll just let it rest here since I'm not really interested in evaluating this thread's OP social scenario from the assumptions of modern day legislation and social and philosophical "normativity."

Blessings, Brother!