What is objective morality?

[prov1810]

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.

He does not generally think that theft is wrong. He thinks that he is entitled to someone else's property and that his act of resource allocation is completely appropriate. He does not sincerely believe in property rights or anything else. He's just impulsive.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

There was a similar circumstance in my own experience.

I was taking an ethics class in the mid-80s in which during the Monday session a woman declared that there was no such thing as an absolute moral standard.

Then during the Wednesday class, the same woman declared that it was absolute wrong in all circumstances to deny any female an abortion.

I pointed out her conflict, to which she took high umbrage.

Says writer Jerry Pournelle, "There might not be any absolute morals, but everyone acts as if there are some...at least some of his own."

 

[prov1810]

The bookkeeper committing fraud knows he is putting down false information, but does it anyway.

So we can say, "You know that you are lying." But as for the immorality of the lie, can we say, "You know that lying is wrong"? Maybe the bookkeeper believes that one should simply say whatever is advantageous to oneself. This is the worldview of the sociopath.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Why did she feel a need to declair it "objectivly" wrong? Wrong is wrong; an issue doesn't become less wrong because it's subjective, or more wrong because it is objective; would you agree? Using the scenario, if circumcision were objectivly wrong; wouldn't it be obvious to those who were practicing female circumcision? And what about male circumcision? If these were objective moral issues, wouldn't they be agreed upon by everybody?

Ken

 

[RDKirk]

Why did she feel a need to declair it "objectivly" wrong? Wrong is wrong; an issue doesn't become less wrong because it's subjective, or more wrong because it is objective; would you agree? Using the scenario, if circumcision were objectivly wrong; wouldn't it be obvious to those who were practicing female circumcision? And what about male circumcision? If these were objective moral issues, wouldn't they be agreed upon by everybody?

Ken

She had already demolished any moral framework to justify imposing her own morality on another culture...until she discovered a culture with a practice she could not tolerate.

 

[Ken-1122]

He does not generally think that theft is wrong.

He thinks theft is wrong, he just doesn't see what he is doing as theft.

He thinks that he is entitled to someone else's property and that his act of resource allocation is completely appropriate.

This mindset is probably more popular than you think. How many of the poor feel they are entitled to stuff they didn't earn at the expense of the rich? "Because you have so much and I have so little, I am entitled to some of what you have" yet nobody thinks of it as stealing.

He does not sincerely believe in property rights or anything else. He's just impulsive.

If that were true, he would have no problem with someone taking HIS stuff! I will bet you that is never the case.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

So we can say, "You know that you are lying." But as for the immorality of the lie, can we say, "You know that lying is wrong"? Maybe the bookkeeper believes that one should simply say whatever is advantageous to oneself. This is the worldview of the sociopath.

Suppose you lived in Germany 80 years ago and the storm troopers came to your house asking if you had any Jews there, and you knew you did! Should you tell the truth then? Or should you lie. If lying were an objective morality, the answer would be the same and it would be obvious to everyone don't cha think?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

She had already demolished any moral framework to justify imposing her own morality on another culture...until she discovered a culture with a practice she could not tolerate.

Hum.... Sounds like a hypcrypt to me.

Ken

 

[prov1810]

He thinks theft is wrong, he just doesn't see what he is doing as theft.


This mindset is probably more popular than you think. How many of the poor feel they are entitled to stuff they didn't earn at the expense of the rich? "Because you have so much and I have so little, I am entitled to some of what you have" yet nobody thinks of it as stealing.

If that were true, he would have no problem with someone taking HIS stuff! I will bet you that is never the case.

K

A thief does not believe in property rights. Property rights are important only when they refer to his own property. He believes in his own advantage and that is his governing principle. He does not believe that an ethical principle has the authority to bind his conscience or deny his wants. There are people in the world who think this way all the time - they have never had a pained conscience and they will never grieve over injustice in the world. If they have an ethos it's "survival of the most ruthless" as long as they get to survive, and if they are vulnerable they will appeal for pity.

But the existence of morally bankrupt persons does not disprove the existence of an objective morality. The existence of disagreement or confusion or a sheer lack of awareness of something does not mean that the thing is non-existent.

 

[prov1810]

Suppose you lived in Germany 80 years ago and the storm troopers came to your house asking if you had any Jews there, and you knew you did! Should you tell the truth then? Or should you lie. If lying were an objective morality, the answer would be the same and it would be obvious to everyone don't cha think?

Ken

There is a hierarchy of values in which protecting the innocent is more important than making factually true statements to bloodthirsty nazis.

 

[Ken-1122]

A thief does not believe in property rights. Property rights are important only when they refer to his own property. He believes in his own advantage and that is his governing principle. He does not believe that an ethical principle has the authority to bind his conscience or deny his wants. There are people in the world who think this way all the time - they have never had a pained conscience and they will never grieve over injustice in the world. If they have an ethos it's "survival of the most ruthless" as long as they get to survive, and if they are vulnerable they will appeal for pity.

You're discribing a sociopath. These people are rare. Most people who cheat, or steal are not sociopath's they are for the most part honest people who have a moment of weakness and will behave less than honorable when things get difficult. But when these people behave less than honorable, they are still as aware of the bad behavior as they are when they are behaving honorably.

But the existence of morally bankrupt persons does not disprove the existence of an objective morality. The existence of disagreement or confusion or a sheer lack of awareness of something does not mean that the thing is non-existent.

A sociopath/morally bankrupt person is not the type of person I was talking about. using my example, that would be like going to a person who doesn't understand math and asking him if 1+1=2, or asking a blind person if the Grass is green. That's why I asked does objective morality exist for those who understand morality.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

There is a hierarchy of values in which protecting the innocent is more important than making factually true statements to bloodthirsty nazis.

My point is; lying is not always bad; sometimes it is good. Do you agree?

Ken

 

[prov1810]

You're discribing a sociopath. These people are rare. Most people who cheat, or steal are not sociopath's they are for the most part honest people who have a moment of weakness and will behave less than honorable when things get difficult. But when these people behave less than honorable, they are still as aware of the bad behavior as they are when they are behaving honorably.


A sociopath/morally bankrupt person is not the type of person I was talking about. using my example, that would be like going to a person who doesn't understand math and asking him if 1+1=2, or asking a blind person if the Grass is green. That's why I asked does objective morality exist for those who understand morality.

Ken

You seem to be saying that moral facts exist, and that most people know them. Am I reading you correctly?

 

[prov1810]

My point is; lying is not always bad; sometimes it is good. Do you agree?

Ken

I would say it's a necessary evil: unfortunate that it has to happen, but less bad than giving up the innocent (in the nazi scenario).

 

[Ken-1122]

You seem to be saying that moral facts exist, and that most people know them. Am I reading you correctly?

I wouldn't quite call them "facts" because I don't see how it can be proven empiracally.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I would say it's a necessary evil: unfortunate that it has to happen, but less bad than giving up the innocent (in the nazi scenario).

Do you agree there are occasions when lying could be the right thing to do?

Ken

 

[lesliedellow]

Wrong is wrong;

Wrong isn't wrong if morality is subjective. Wrong is your personal opinion, or at most the opinion of the culture in which you live - as that female anthropologist found out.

wrong because it is objective;

Wrong only has meaning if it is objective. Otherwise it just denotes you emotional reaction to somebody torturing a child.

would you agree? Using the scenario, if circumcision were objectively wrong; wouldn't it be obvious to those who were practicing female circumcision?

Why should it be? So far as we know, it is objectively true that a hydrogen atom is made up of one proton and one electron. Does being objectively true make that fact obvious?

 

[prov1810]

Do you agree there are occasions when lying could be the right thing to do?

Ken

Yes, but that doesn't mean that lying is good. All lying is a breach of integrity. But sometimes an evil act prevents something more evil (harmful) from happening.

 

[Ken-1122]

Wrong isn't wrong if morality is subjective. Wrong is your personal opinion, or at most the opinion of the culture in which you live - as that female anthropologist found out.

Wrong is wrong based upon my opinion, or based on something outside of myself weather it be what God says, the Golden Rule says, Humanist manafesto, says, or whatever someone chooses to use as a base for morality; it all results in the person claiming it is wrong. Do you agree?

Wrong only has meaning if it is objective. Otherwise it just denotes you emotional reaction to somebody torturing a child.

How is it objective?

Why should it be? So far as we know, it is objectively true that a hydrogen atom is made up of one proton and one electron. Does being objectively true make that fact obvious?

It does to someone who understands hydrogen atoms!

Ken

 

[RDKirk]

Hum.... Sounds like a hypcrypt to me.

Ken

Yes.