What use would an objective morality have?

[Wyzaard]

Let's assume there exists some basis of objective morality apart from social conventions and the circumstances of materiality, an unchanging/absolute/ultimate standard, that ever-burning lighthouse for us to chart our lives by...

Why should we give a damn? What's the point of following something so removed from the world of contingency and context that we live in? What would make this objective moral basis authoritative, and why?

 

[cantata]

I would guess (and bear in mind that I don't believe in such a thing, but here goes) that people who think this standard of objective morality exists also believe that it is actually the source of our moral feelings, if and when we have them. In other words, this standard is the thing that makes us feel one ought not to torture people or one ought to be kind to sick people. It's not like a list of rules written in the sky somewhere that you can ignore if you feel like it. It's actually a set of feelings that are firmly buried in your psyche. So to ask why we should obey it misses the point. If you have moral motivation, it comes from this standard; and most people suffer emotionally if they disobey their moral motivations.

 

[Wyzaard]

I would guess (and bear in mind that I don't believe in such a thing, but here goes) that people who think this standard of objective morality exists also believe that it is actually the source of our moral feelings, if and when we have them. In other words, this standard is the thing that makes us feel one ought not to torture people or one ought to be kind to sick people. It's not like a list of rules written in the sky somewhere that you can ignore if you feel like it. It's actually a set of feelings that are firmly buried in your psyche. So to ask why we should obey it misses the point. If you have moral motivation, it comes from this standard; and most people suffer emotionally if they disobey their moral motivations.

But might that be an impetus towards righteous deviation/rebellion, to go against the imposed objective-moral flow and carve out one's own moral basis their their own terms? Christians like to talk about butting worldly desires and eschewing sinful activities, acts that often prove painful and counter-intuitive. Why not do the same to absolute moral truths? If it's truly undeniable... what's the point in making moral arguments at all; such instincts ultimately belay any real moral choice.

 

[quatona]

Let's assume there exists some basis of objective morality apart from social conventions and the circumstances of materiality, an unchanging/absolute/ultimate standard, that ever-burning lighthouse for us to chart our lives by...

Well, I have problems assuming this - mainly because I don´t seem to get what a "objective morality" is supposed to mean and how we would discern it. I am able to fathom objective descriptions, but I seem to be unable to fathom what would make a prescription objective.
Either this standard is universally (among all gods and humans and beings) and without exception agreed upon (in which case your questions would be pointless), or it wouldn´t be unchanging/absolute.

The closest I get is the idea that certain actions have the ever same desirable or undesirable consequences. However, while I can think of a couple of consequences that would be almost universally considered negative I couldn´t follow the conclusion that these consequences are therefore objectively negative and the preceeding action objectively wrong (as opposed to being broadly agreed upon as negative and wrong).

Why should we give a damn?

Depends on what "objective morality" actually means and what you are thinking of when asking this question.

What's the point of following something so removed from the world of contingency and context that we live in?

E.g. in my above example (which isn´t actually dealing with "objectivity") it would be the desire to avoid negative consequences inflicted upon us by the subjective lawgiver. No matter how removed they are from our world or even arbitrary and/or absurd, the threat of punishment would be the concrete link to our world.

What would make this objective moral basis authoritative,

I find this a comparably easy question ("the might of the author of the - objective or subjective or whatever - moral set to inflict severe punishment upon us and our fear of the punishment would make the moral basis authoritative"), whilst I´m still struggling with the question "What would make an (authoritative) moral basis objective"?

 

[Nihilismus]

The need for anything "objective" is pure cowardice. One does not want to make decisions for oneself and so must rely on some set standard.

The Christian is correct when he/she asserts that "without God, everything is permissible". That is the truth that they so fear. They need some intrinsic meaning to console themselves in what is ultimately an absurd universe. The fact that their belief systems are hypocritical, contradictory and summarily ludicrous is irrelevant. It is what they need to fill the void. Any surrender to doublethink and philosophical suicide is preferred over reality.

To sum up religious defense with a single quote:

"The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me." - Blaise Pascal

 

[Autumnleaf]

Without objective morality it would be okay for me, or others I know, to kill you and take what you have because subjectively I think its the right thing to do.

 

[Nihilismus]

Without objective morality it would be okay for me, or others I know, to kill you and take what you have because subjectively I think its the right thing to do.

Precisely. Welcome to reality.

 

[Zaac]

Let's assume there exists some basis of objective morality apart from social conventions and the circumstances of materiality, an unchanging/absolute/ultimate standard, that ever-burning lighthouse for us to chart our lives by...

Why should we give a damn? What's the point of following something so removed from the world of contingency and context that we live in? What would make this objective moral basis authoritative, and why?

1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. 2 Tim 3:1-5

 

[b&wpac4]

1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. 2 Tim 3:1-5

When are these "last days"?

 

[roflcopter101]

Oh, yes! fill the churches with dirty thoughts! Introduce honesty to the White House! Write letters in dead languages to people you've never met! Paint filthy words on the foreheads of children! Burn your credit cards and wear high heels! Asylum doors stand open! Fill the suburbs with murder and rape! Divine madness! Let there be ecstasy, ecstasy in the streets! Laugh and the world laughs with you!

 

[ReverendDG]

Without objective morality it would be okay for me, or others I know, to kill you and take what you have because subjectively I think its the right thing to do.

yep and you have no recourse when other people who care about those you have killed, come and kill you.
see how that works?

 

[Zaac]

When are these "last days"?

Now.


3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 2 Peter 3:3-5

 

[roflcopter101]

Now.

And how are you so sure?

 

[Wyzaard]

Without objective morality it would be okay for me, or others I know, to kill you and take what you have because subjectively I think its the right thing to do.

With an objective morality it would be okay for me, or others I know, to kill you and take what you have because subjectively I think its the right thing to do... regardless of the objective basis of the morality or the threatened consequence of my breaking it.

Which admittedly, all falls back upon the subjective feelings and overwhelming force that this 'god' presumably uses to establish this pseudo-objective morality. (thanks quantona)

 

[Wyzaard]

Now.


3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 2 Peter 3:3-5

We'd all appreciate it if you'd take part in the discussion, instead of evangelizing.

 

[allhart]

What about absolute truth? It points to Objective morality. If we are real with reality. It paves the way to right and wrong. In like to say you are never moderately dead. Dead is dead! Just like you can't be moderately free. You are or your not....

 

[Wyzaard]

What about absolute truth? It points to Objective morality. If we are real with reality. It paves the way to right and wrong.

How so? Assuming such a thing exists and is accessible/comprehensible, what obligates one to obey it? How is it superior to our intersubjectively-constructed moralities? Why is it important at all?

In like to say you are never moderately dead. Dead is dead! Just like you can't be moderately free. You are or your not....

Relevance?

 

[allhart]

How so? Assuming such a thing exists and is accessible/comprehensible, what obligates one to obey it? How is it superior to our intersubjectively-constructed moralities? Why is it important at all?



Relevance?

what obligates one to obey it? You play with words to create chaos in rational thinking; in your rhetoric. Objective morals are self evident. Rape is bad, Molesting a Child is bad, Dead is dead, To leave our atmosphere with no Oxygen; you die.... Some of these are extreme, but all are self evident. You just play around with them in moral freedom to chose, right....? You can't be moderately bad. You are or you aren't. Reality man! You can chose to contest what you are created for, but it doesn't change the reality of it all.

 

[bob135]

Let's assume there exists some basis of objective morality apart from social conventions and the circumstances of materiality, an unchanging/absolute/ultimate standard, that ever-burning lighthouse for us to chart our lives by...

Why should we give a damn? What's the point of following something so removed from the world of contingency and context that we live in? What would make this objective moral basis authoritative, and why?

With an objective moral standard it becomes much easier to give policy recommendations and make decisions that you know are morally correct. Also, it allows you to justify your actions in a manner consistent with the way others justify their actions.

I don't think the issue is simply that "people can do whatever they want." That's true regardless of what moral facts are. I think the bigger problem with non-objective moralities is that people can do whatever they want AND be completely justified in doing so.

I think you could have absolute moral statements that contain qualifiers (any imperative moral statement implicitly has the qualifier "if you are human"), so there is some room for context and so forth even in an absolute system.

 

[Wyzaard]

what obligates one to obey it? You play with words to create chaos in rational thinking; in your rhetoric. Objective morals are self evident.

So... they're objective because they're objective, thus I'm obligated to obey them?

Rape is bad, Molesting a Child is bad, Dead is dead, To leave our atmosphere with no Oxygen; you die.... Some of these are extreme, but all are self evident.

Wait a sec... why are you equating contingent empirical facts with absolute moral judgments? I see no reason why I cannot simply follow my own moral convention which designates rape as bad... what need have I of anything 'objective'?

You just play around with them in moral freedom to chose, right....? You can't be moderately bad. You are or you aren't. Reality man! You can chose to contest what you are created for, but it doesn't change the reality of it all.

What in the blue blazes are you babbling about?