What does objective morality do?

[Norea]

Yep I agree.

-- Bridget

 

[Randall McNally]

In the past, everybody thougth the earth was flat. Than they discovered that the earth was round. The imediate consequence of it was none, but with time, it helped us to develop other theories. The same here. The imediate consequence of discovering that morality is objective, opens the door for us to search for this objective morality more and more and develop other theories based on it. And it will make mankind better.

This all becomes relevant as soon as someone comes up with a conceivable way in which an objective morality might exist. We already know several ways in which it won't exist, chief among them by decree of some entity.

 

[Norea]

Yes, morality has to be like in some way a physical law or more specifically the action/reaction dichtomy of an issue. Or that's the way I see it as.

-- Bridget

 

[Dragar]

I think this is David's argument.

Let's say we go clever enough to create some highly advanced scientific tool - so powerful that it let us discover the precise nature of an objective moral system.

We look at these rules. They're objectively wrong - we know that. But why would we care? How would this alter our behaviour?

I think that's David's argument.

 

[an7222]

I think this is David's argument.

Let's say we go clever enough to create some highly advanced scientific tool - so powerful that it let us discover the precise nature of an objective moral system.

We look at these rules. They're objectively wrong - we know that. But why would we care? How would this alter our behaviour?

I think that's David's argument.

How do you say it won't alter our behavior? I think it will change the behavior of a lot of people. Many people (but not everybody, unfortunately) that believed the earth was flat changed their opinion when we discovered the earth was round. If people can change their opinion, why they can't change their behavior?

 

[Randall McNally]

Yes, morality has to be like in some way a physical law or more specifically the action/reaction dichtomy of an issue. Or that's the way I see it as.

Objective morality entails what ought to be done, not what must be done. Physical laws describe actions that always occur. If an objective moral precept describes something that always occurs, then it is a physical law.

 

[Randall McNally]

How do you say it won't alter our behavior? I think it will change the behavior of a lot of people. Many people (but not everybody, unfortunately) that believed the earth was flat changed their opinion when we discovered the earth was round. If people can change their opinion, why they can't change their behavior?

One would think there needs to be some way of determining a moral code's objectivity to one's intellectual satisfaction. I'm sure some people would react the way you say they would. But others will pay little mind if there's no tangible consequence for violating an objective moral precept.

 

[an7222]

One would think there needs to be some way of determining a moral code's objectivity to one's intellectual satisfaction. I'm sure some people would react the way you say they would. But others will pay little mind if there's no tangible consequence for violating an objective moral precept.

Yes, but still it will be worthwhile. If only one people would change his behavior, it would be still worthwhile. Imagine if we had a scientific way of proving some behavior is wrong? It would be fantastic.

 

[Randall McNally]

Yes, but still it will be worthwhile. If only one people would change his behavior, it would be still worthwhile. Imagine if we had a scientific way of proving some behavior is wrong? It would be fantastic.

What would you say to the person who asks "What does 'wrong' mean?" Do you say, "Wrong is what the universe tells you not to do"?

 

[an7222]

What would you say to the person who asks "What does 'wrong' mean?" Do you say, "Wrong is what the universe tells you not to do"?

You exist. You are a form of life. You share your existence with others in the universe and your actions may have consequences to the existence of others. The others want to exist and be happy. Life shows it wants to exist and prosper. And you should not destroy this. If you don't value life, you should be coherent and destroy your life first.

 

[Randall McNally]

You exist. You are a form of life. You share your existence with others in the universe and your actions may have consequences to the existence of others. The others want to exist and be happy. Life shows it wants to exist and prosper. And you should not destroy this. If you don't value life, you should be coherent and destroy your life first.

A fine sentiment, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with objective morality.

 

[Dragar]

What would you say to the person who asks "What does 'wrong' mean?" Do you say, "Wrong is what the universe tells you not to do"?

Far better worded than my version.

The only way, I think, is to say the what is 'objectively wrong' will always be what people consider to be wrong.

But there isn't anything that everyone considers wrong. Some people don't think it's wrong to cause harm to others. Some think it's wrong to suicide, or eat meat.

Enter subjective morality.

 

[David Gould]

In the past, everybody thougth the earth was flat. Than they discovered that the earth was round. The imediate consequence of it was none, but with time, it helped us to develop other theories. The same here. The imediate consequence of discovering that morality is objective, opens the door for us to search for this objective morality more and more and develop other theories based on it. And it will make mankind better.

How will it make mankind better? We have laws now that people do not obey. What is it that would make them obey these laws more? The fact that they are objective? Why would an objective moral law be obeyed more than a subjective one?

 

[CSMR]

Let us assume that objective morality exists. There are a set of rules/laws that are true. It actually is evil to murder, and so on.

What then? Why would this make any difference to human behaviour? After all, aren't we given the choice as to whether to obey those laws or not? If we can disobey these laws just as easily as we can disobey any human made laws what is it that objective morality actually does?

Theologically speaking, knowledge of objective morality brings knowledge of sin. Whether it makes a difference to behaviour is impossible to say, since that is with respect to a world that does not exist, a world with no morality.

 

[an7222]

A fine sentiment, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with objective morality.

Yes, it does. It shows existence is a value for all living beings. Everybody searches for a happy & fullfiling existence, be it here or in "heaven". So, it's a moral value. Why so many people values existence? Isn't there some objective reason for it?

 

[an7222]

How will it make mankind better? We have laws now that people do not obey. What is it that would make them obey these laws more? The fact that they are objective? Why would an objective moral law be obeyed more than a subjective one?

Don't you think knowledge makes mankind better? I do think so.

 

[Randall McNally]

Theologically speaking, knowledge of objective morality brings knowledge of sin. Whether it makes a difference to behaviour is impossible to say, since that is with respect to a world that does not exist, a world with no morality.

Theologically speaking, people who believe in God already accept an objective morality, for the most part.

 

[Randall McNally]

Yes, it does. It shows existence is a value for all living beings. Everybody searches for a happy & fullfiling existence, be it here or in "heaven". So, it's a moral value. Why so many people values existence? Isn't there some objective reason for it?

I don't think so. You're just describing the way you would react to knowledge of an objective morality, then blindly proscribing that to everyone else. Except that's what we're trying to elucidate - why should people react that way?

 

[Norea]

I still don't think you can simplify morality down to 'sin' and 'non-sin'. It's irrational. Morals must provide a basis of a better life. Why should we follow morals? Is there a bonus to being moral vs ammoral? Well the theories I've seen in sociology seems to suggest a few options.


1) As I said before in a previous post, morality is objective and is just an action/consequence dichtomy. If you're honest, people trust you. If you don't cheat on your wife/husband, they tend to stay with you and trust you. Etc etc.

2) Morals are a codification of certain values that developed in a specific culture, some of the values are universal but many are subjective. It basically means to do morality would be subjective with few objective values[honesty, courage, etc etc].

3) All morals are subjective and there is no real consequence. From what I've read with you all here no one really seems to side with this issue cept maybe on subjective morals like I state in 2[like being gey, black, atheist etc].

I prefer 1 and 2 because 3 leads to chaos with no sense of Reason.

-- Bridget

 

[an7222]

I don't think so. You're just describing the way you would react to knowledge of an objective morality, then blindly proscribing that to everyone else. Except that's what we're trying to elucidate - why should people react that way?

Any knowledge, be it the knowledge of objective morality or whatever, always change people ideas and behavior.

But, even if it wouldn't change anything, it would still be worthwhile.