What is objective morality?

[Joshua260]

But not everybody has agreed on if antisemitism has a positive or negetive moral value attched to it. Doesn't that make it subjective?

Ken

I think you misunderstood me. When I said "everyone agrees that antisemitism has a positive moral value attached to it, therefore antisemitism must have a positive moral value attached to it", I was using that as an example of how people might claim antisemitism had a positive moral value simply because that's what the majority of people in a nation like Germany with brain matter between their ears told them. You seem to be confident of your position on raping little girls, so let's stick with example. If everyone in the nation (and even the world) used their brain matter and concluded that raping little girls had a positive moral value attached to it (hmmm...here's a good caveat that might help the choice seem clearer: what if everybody had been drinking water in lead-lined cups causing everyone to suffer from insanity), would that be a correct conclusion in your view?

 

[lesliedellow]

I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality”. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Ken

It is morality which has a based upon something other than your personal likes and dislikes. The basis used to be Christianity, but today you would be hard pushed to find any common ground upon the basis of which it could be agreed that something is/isn't immoral, or should/shouldn't be illegal - except with regard to particular issues, such as murder.

The problem relativists have is in finding a basis for saying the Nazis were evil, full stop, and not merely that they were not to their personal liking.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think I've already answered that,

I must have missed it. Care to run that by me again?

and I'd rather not retread that road anymore in this thread because it's diverting from what would otherwise be a productive discussion.

But that is what this thread is about! We can go down more than one road at a time if you wish.

I think it would be more productive to stick to things that we can agree on, which I think we agree that "raping little girls is definitely something that has a negative moral value attached to it", and see if can move on from there. So I think the next obvious question that we should be asking is "where did that negative moral value attached to the concept of rape come from"? My contention is that if you're going to insist that God does not exist, then you must adhere to the logical result that this negative moral value that we see in rape comes only from between our two ears. Is that your position?

Yes.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

I think you misunderstood me. When I said "everyone agrees that antisemitism has a positive moral value attached to it, therefore antisemitism must have a positive moral value attached to it", I was using that as an example of how people might claim antisemitism had a positive moral value simply because that's what the majority of people in a nation like Germany with brain matter between their ears told them. You seem to be confident of your position on raping little girls, so let's stick with example. If everyone in the nation (and even the world) used their brain matter and concluded that raping little girls had a positive moral value attached to it (hmmm...here's a good caveat that might help the choice seem clearer: what if everybody had been drinking water in lead-lined cups causing everyone to suffer from insanity), would that be a correct conclusion in your view?

No. But weather I say no, or God says no; makes no difference except to those who embrace what I say; or what God says. Does that make sense?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

It is morality which has a based upon something other than your personal likes and dislikes. The basis used to be Christianity, but today you would be hard pushed to find any common ground upon the basis of which it could be agreed that something is/isn't immoral, or should/shouldn't be illegal - except with regard to particular issues, such as murder.

So doesn't that make it subjective?

The problem relativists have is in finding a basis for saying the Nazis were evil, full stop, and not merely that they were not to their personal liking.

Why would you need a basis to say the Nazis were evil? Especially when you just know the Nazis are going to disagree with that basis? In other words; saying God says so means nothing to those who don't care what God says; do you agree?

Ken

 

[lesliedellow]

So doesn't that make it subjective?

If we lived in the nineteenth century, or even the first half of the twentieth century, it would mean that society as a whole agreed about what the objective basis for morality was. In the absence of an agreed baseline, people just talk past one another.

Why would you need a basis to say the Nazis were evil?

In the following sentences you answer your own question. In their own eyes the Nazis were doubtless highly moral, and if everything is relative, the Allies had no basis, other than being the victors in the Second World War, for putting them on trial and executing some of them. Upon what basis do you say that your morality is better than theirs?

 

[Ken-1122]

If we lived in the nineteenth century, or even the first half of the twentieth century, it would mean that society as a whole agreed about what the objective basis for morality was. In the absence of an agreed baseline, people just talk past one another.

But in most moral situations, you rarely get an agreed baseline; the best you might get is the majority will agree.

In the following sentences you answer your own question. In their own eyes the Nazis were doubtless highly moral, and if everything is relative, the Allies had no basis, other than being the victors in the Second World War, for putting them on trial and executing some of them. Upon what basis do you say that your morality is better than theirs?

I personally would use the Golden Rule, but I would do this knowing if they have no respect for the Golden Rule, my words would be as empty as using God's word would be to someone who has no respect for God's word.

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

No. But weather I say no, or God says no; makes no difference except to those who embrace what I say; or what God says. Does that make sense?

Ken

Yes, it makes sense for an atheist to take that position because as you confirmed in your other post, you believe that the negative moral value attached to raping little girls is only an illusory trait placed on that practice by the reasoning within your own mind. Wow...I'm really not trying to insult you but it may sound like it. I'm only restating the view I'm learning from your responses.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood you, and if I have, I sincerely apologize. Otherwise, have a good day.

 

[lesliedellow]

But in most moral situations, you rarely get an agreed baseline; the best you might get is the majority will agree.

Not nowadays there isn't, which is why any discussion of moral questions rapidly degenerates into name calling. The same thing would happen in science, if there was no agreed basis in the common acceptance of a paradigm.

"My theory is best, because it better fits my paradigm...... No, my theory is best, because it better fits my paradigm. Nah, nah - na - nah, nah."

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, it makes sense for an atheist to take that position because as you confirmed in your other post, you believe that the negative moral value attached to raping little girls is only an illusory trait placed on that practice by the reasoning within your own mind. Wow...I'm really not trying to insult you but it may sound like it. I'm only restating the view I'm learning from your responses.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood you, and if I have, I sincerely apologize. Otherwise, have a good day.

So even though we both agree rape is wrong, what makes it objective? And is it as obvious as 1+1=2?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Not nowadays there isn't, which is why any discussion of moral questions rapidly degenerates into name calling. The same thing would happen in science, if there was no agreed basis in the common acceptance of a paradigm.

"My theory is best, because it better fits my paradigm...... No, my theory is best, because it better fits my paradigm. Nah, nah - na - nah, nah."

Unfortunately, in the real world, that is what you get! wouldn't that suggest subjective morality?

Ken

 

[prov1810]

The fact that people disagree on morals doesn't disprove the existence of moral facts. A thief does not believe that stealing is wrong, but this isn't a philosophical problem for the rest of us. And 1+1=2 may be the gold standard for obvious trueness, but it's not true for someone who commits bookkeeping fraud. Politicians do weird things with numbers every time they breathe, are numbers hopelessly subjective now?

 

[Ken-1122]

The fact that people disagree on morals doesn't disprove the existence of moral facts. A thief does not believe that stealing is wrong, but this isn't a philosophical problem for the rest of us. And 1+1=2 may be the gold standard for obvious trueness, but it's not true for someone who commits bookkeeping fraud. Politicians do weird things with numbers every time they breathe, are numbers hopelessly subjective now?

A thief knows stealing is wrong; that's why he waits till nobody is looking. The bookkeeper committing fraud knows he is putting down false information, but does it anyway. The politician who does weird things with numbers is purposly giving false information to further his agendia. Numbers are objective because anyone who knows numbers will agree when they are used correctly. Do you believe the same could be said for morality?

Ken

 

[prov1810]

A thief knows stealing is wrong; that's why he waits till nobody is looking.

He doesn't believe it's wrong. He believes that society disapproves. If he believed it was wrong he would believe that he should not do it. But he believes that he should do it.

Numbers are objective because anyone who knows numbers will agree when they are used correctly. Do you believe the same could be said for morality?

We do not have universal agreement on numbers - some people will say the research was skewed. But the absence of agreement doesn't change the fact that something really is the case.

 

[Harry3142]

Jesus himself taught that there are certain actions, as well as certain motivations, which we are to see as immoral:

He went on, "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from within and make a man 'unclean.' " (The Gospel of St. Mark 7:20-23,NIV)

Note that those actions and motivations which Jesus described as 'unclean' (aka immoral) are also actions and motivations which endanger the very fabric of any society when that society permits them to be practiced. It doesn't matter whether the society was ancient Israel, ancient Rome, or Nazi Germany; when the line was crossed between moral and immoral (or even amoral) behavior, the entire society crumbled. And the utter destruction of those societies which spurned morality is clear evidence of the objectivity of that morality.

 

[RDKirk]

He doesn't believe it's wrong. He believes that society disapproves. If he believed it was wrong he would believe that he should not do it. But he believes that he should do it.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the thief has justified the circumstances of his own act, not that he generally thinks theft is okay. He'd still be upset if someone stole from him.

 

[Ken-1122]

He doesn't believe it's wrong. He believes that society disapproves. If he believed it was wrong he would believe that he should not do it. But he believes that he should do it.

Do you believe thieves are really acting out of ignorance? That they honestly cannot understand the wrong behavior of taking something that doesn't belong to them?

We do not have universal agreement on numbers - some people will say the research was skewed. But the absence of agreement doesn't change the fact that something really is the case.

Can you give an example of someone using numbers (base 10) in a way that the correct answer cannot be agreed upon?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Jesus himself taught that there are certain actions, as well as certain motivations, which we are to see as immoral:

He went on, "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from within and make a man 'unclean.' " (The Gospel of St. Mark 7:20-23,NIV)

Note that those actions and motivations which Jesus described as 'unclean' (aka immoral) are also actions and motivations which endanger the very fabric of any society when that society permits them to be practiced. It doesn't matter whether the society was ancient Israel, ancient Rome, or Nazi Germany; when the line was crossed between moral and immoral (or even amoral) behavior, the entire society crumbled. And the utter destruction of those societies which spurned morality is clear evidence of the objectivity of that morality.

Are those the only actios that are objectively immoral, or are there others?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the thief has justified the circumstances of his own act, not that he generally thinks theft is okay. He'd still be upset if someone stole from him.

Excellent point! He probably wouldn't see it as "stealing" thus he probably wouldn't consider himself a theif.

Ken

 

[lesliedellow]

Unfortunately, in the real world, that is what you get! wouldn't that suggest subjective morality?

It would suggest nothing at all about the existence of an objective morality. There is a story about a women anthropologist who had the "enlightened" opinion that morality was a social construct, and nobody had the right to interfere with another culture's moral standards.

That lasted until she visited a culture where female circumcision was practised, and found herself confronted with the choice of sticking to her theoretical position, or saying what she really felt, which was she was witnessing something absolutely and objectively wrong.