Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

You are still playing a numbers game. You claim that the survey proves you right because the people asked were qualified in some way to know the issue better than us regular Joe's. And yet, even among the people in the survey, barely more than half said they agreed to objective morals. More than 43 percent of people in the survey disagreed with objective morals.

56.4% is significant considering your saying that there is no such thing as objective morality which would mean that we shouldn't even see a winning % but a negative one. So as they say in politics it's a significant swing against your claim and pushes support towards what I was saying.

Second, you are neglecting to mention how it was qualified that if the question was “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, then the % would jump from 56.4% to over 90% of Philosophers supporting objective morality.

And if you want to hold up this survey as being accurate, I should point out that 72.8% of respondents stated that there was no God. Of course, I suspect you'll pick and choose what parts of the survey are valid. The bits that you agree with are valid (read: objective morality) but the bits you don't agree with - such as God not existing - you will discard.

No to the contrary. I actually pointed this out originally and said that even atheists support the case for objective morality by the fact that the majority survey were atheists and as the article said that they were not basing this on proponents of an objective morality being just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists. In other words, using theistic belief to support objective morality
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism? : AskPhilosophyFAQ

Different animals have what can be taken as moral systems. These moral systems are different to ours. Hence, morality is not objective.

Now your claiming animals know right from wrong and have a conscience. There is evidence for this. Secondly, once again you keep repeating the same mistake by appealing to a logical fallacy that because there are different views on morality this means there are no objective morals.

Thirdly if animals did have this different kind of morality what are you saying (that it really doesnt tell right from wrong). Then that would not be morality. But if it is subjective then it makes subjective morality even more unreal and untenable as being the only form of morality. Because we would then have to accept not only evil in humans as being morally OK but evil in animals who are even more barbaric and bloodthirsty. That would make an even stronger case for objective morality.

You were posting your sources to claim, "Most people agree with this, therefore it is correct!"

I freely admit that moral objectivity is the more popular opinion. I never tried to argue that moral subjectivity was correct because it had the numbers to support it. I posted my sources to show that a not-insignificant number of philosophers take the "morality is subjective" position, and therefore there is likely something going for it and we can't just dismiss it.

And I am not saying that humans don't take a subjective view of morals as they do for everything else. Initially, we have to view the world including morality as a subjective being using our senses. There is no avoiding this.

But there can also be objective morals that we can discover outside ourselves whether that be in some moral laws given to us in nature or written on our conscience. But we do know of them intuitively and cannot help but accept this truth even if we try to deny it this will still come through and reveal itself in some way or another.

Here you go with the argument from popularity again...

But I am only doing what you are doing by using the article you linked to show that more philosophers support subjective morality lol. If it's good for the geese. But I also want to point out that it can also be a fallacy that using popularity to reject evidence-based popularity is invalid as well. There can be good reasons why most people believe something.

False analogy. No one is debating the existence of morality. We are debating that nature of that morality. Both flat earthers and globe earthers agree that the earth actually exists, they just disagree with the nature of it.

Isn't that another way to say that they have a different perspective on what the earth is. Philosophically we all believe morals exist so what's the difference. Its the same for a number of scientific theories where scientists have different views on the evidence. Like with quantum physics. There are a number of interpretations which are based on different views such as The Copenhagen Interpretation, The Many-Worlds Interpretation, Hidden Variable Theories, Spontaneous Collapse Theories, transactional interpretation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hey @FrumiousBandersnatch. Where's @Ophiolite.

I dunno - am I Ophiolite's keeper?

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you not believe that our consciences have any content that we do not personally and intentionally put there ourselves?

Personally, I think that's where most of it comes from. Because humans are social creatures, we feel good when we fit in, so holding the same beliefs as the people we interact with feels good. There's a myriad of ways that we can come to associate good feelings with a specific behavior.

 

[VirOptimus]

56.4% is significant considering your saying that there is no such thing as objective morality which would mean that we shouldn't even see a winning % but a negative one. So as they say in politics it's a significant swing against your claim and pushes support towards what I was saying.

Second, you are neglecting to mention how it was qualified that if the question was “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, then the % would jump from 56.4% to over 90% of Philosophers supporting objective morality.

No to the contrary. I actually pointed this out originally and said that even atheists support the case for objective morality by the fact that the majority survey were atheists and as the article said that they were not basing this on proponents of an objective morality being just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists. In other words, using theistic belief to support objective morality
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism? : AskPhilosophyFAQ

Now your claiming animals know right from wrong and have a conscience. There is evidence for this. Secondly, once again you keep repeating the same mistake by appealing to a logical fallacy that because there are different views on morality this means there are no objective morals.

Thirdly if animals did have this different kind of morality what are you saying (that it really doesnt tell right from wrong). Then that would not be morality. But if it is subjective then it makes subjective morality even more unreal and untenable as being the only form of morality. Because we would then have to accept not only evil in humans as being morally OK but evil in animals who are even more barbaric and bloodthirsty. That would make an even stronger case for objective morality.

And I am not saying that humans don't take a subjective view of morals as they do for everything else. Initially, we have to view the world including morality as a subjective being using our senses. There is no avoiding this.

But there can also be objective morals that we can discover outside ourselves whether that be in some moral laws given to us in nature or written on our conscience. But we do know of them intuitively and cannot help but accept this truth even if we try to deny it this will still come through and reveal itself in some way or another.

But I am only doing what you are doing by using the article you linked to show that more philosophers support subjective morality lol. If it's good for the geese. But I also want to point out that it can also be a fallacy that using popularity to reject evidence-based popularity is invalid as well. There can be good reasons why most people believe something.

Isn't that another way to say that they have a different perspective on what the earth is. Philosophically we all believe morals exist so what's the difference. Its the same for a number of scientific theories where scientists have different views on the evidence. Like with quantum physics. There are a number of interpretations which are based on different views such as The Copenhagen Interpretation, The Many-Worlds Interpretation, Hidden Variable Theories, Spontaneous Collapse Theories, transactional interpretation.

Again;

So; death penalty, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Child spanking, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Abortion; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Polygami, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Religion; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Age of consent, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Alcohol; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Smoking; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Drugs; what is "the moral objective truth"?

 

[Kylie]

OK, so do you agree that this does mean that anyone who views abusing children, women, or stealing as Ok are morally wrong outside your opinion as in objectively wrong.

Why do you ask questions about objective rightness and wrongness when I have made my position more than abundantly clear? It really seems like you are just trolling now.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you ask questions about objective rightness and wrongness when I have made my position more than abundantly clear? It really seems like you are just trolling now.

That's because I am unsure if you really appreciate the implications of a subjective moral position. I understand that you realize that saying something is wrong is only a matter of your opinion. But I am not sure whether you understand that this means that you have no way of independently declaring someone who has an opposing view to you that you think is horrible and wrong is truthfully wrong. How this can impact on your ability to prove and tell others they are wrong.

How it follows that this put evil and abhorrent acts on par with what you consider morally right in a subjective moral system. What Hitler did was not morally wrong just different. This shows how a subjective system cannot be practical or usable and that when people do insist that there are moral truths beyond their personal views in the way they live out their morality that they are actually taking an objective position.

 

[Kylie]

That's because I am unsure if you really appreciate the implications of a subjective moral position. I understand that you realize that saying something is wrong is only a matter of your opinion. But I am not sure whether you understand that this means that you have no way of independently declaring someone who has an opposing view to you that you think is horrible and wrong is truthfully wrong. How this can impact on your ability to prove and tell others they are wrong.

How it follows that this put evil and abhorrent acts on par with what you consider morally right in a subjective moral system. What Hitler did was not morally wrong just different. This shows how a subjective system cannot be practical or usable and that when people do insist that there are moral truths beyond their personal views in the way they live out their morality that they are actually taking an objective position.

You really don't understand my position at all.

 

[stevevw]

You really don't understand my position at all.

But I am not talking about your position but the system of subjective morality and its practical application for being used to determine morality.

 

[Kylie]

But I am not talking about your position but the system of subjective morality and its practical application for being used to determine morality.

And I have been very clear that any answer I give you will be based on my subjective morality. Yet you keep asking for absolute answers.

Like I said, you don't understand my position. I can tell you what I think, nothing more. If you ask me how morality is to be determined in a way for everyone, I can't help you, because no such technique exists.

 

[VirOptimus]

But I am not talking about your position but the system of subjective morality and its practical application for being used to determine morality.

You really really dont understand systems that are based on anything else than "objective morality".

Also, answer post 2704.

 

[stevevw]

You really really dont understand systems that are based on anything else than "objective morality".

Also, answer post 2704.

I have asked several times for someone to explain how a moral system other than one that that has an objective measure can determine what is right and wrong. No one has explained what that system is apart from saying it's based on personal opinion. But that cannot work in a society that needs to have some independent measure so that we can judge morality properly rather than through personal "likes and dislikes".

 

[stevevw]

And I have been very clear that any answer I give you will be based on my subjective morality. Yet you keep asking for absolute answers.

Like I said, you don't understand my position. I can tell you what I think, nothing more. If you ask me how morality is to be determined in a way for everyone, I can't help you, because no such technique exists.

So are you saying that if a person goes around raping and killing people there is no independent moral standard apart from individual personal views that can say they are morally objectively wrong? Surely there is a common moral standard that determines that stealing, killing, assault, and child abuse are morally wrong. We prosecute people for doing those things so there must be some basis for this.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have asked several times for someone to explain how a moral system other than one that that has an objective measure can determine what is right and wrong. No one has explained what that system is apart from saying it's based on personal opinion. But that cannot work in a society that needs to have some independent measure so that we can judge morality properly rather than through personal "likes and dislikes".

You expect a non-objective morality system to have objective values? Do you not understand how stupid that is?

And morality systems based on non-objective views work just fine, see here in Sweden f.ex.

Again, answer post 2704.

 

[VirOptimus]

So are you saying that if a person goes around raping and killing people there is no independent moral standard apart from individual personal views that can say they are morally objectively wrong? Surely there is a common moral standard that determines that stealing, killing, assault, and child abuse are morally wrong. We prosecute people for doing those things so there must be some basis for this.

Of course there are bases for it, just not "objective morality".

Cant you argue why murder is wrong? Must you point to a "objective morality" to do so?

Also, answer post 2704.

 

[stevevw]

Again;

So; death penalty, what is "the moral objective truth"?

It is morally justifiable for someone to be punished for heinous crimes by the death penalty.

Child spanking, what is "the moral objective truth"?

Like the death penalty punishment in itself is not a moral act. The moral value here is about not abusing a child/person. So spanking in itself is not necessarily wrong. It is the abuse of a child that is wrong. So a determination needs to be made as to whether a person has abused the child.

What some get confused with is that because a determination needs to be made as to whether the act is classed as abuse or not then this must mean morality is subjective. But that is not the case. Once the misunderstanding is sorted then most people agree in the moral value that abusing a child is wrong. You will not find any reasonable person say abusing a kid is morally right.

Abortion; what is "the moral objective truth"?

The same with abortion. The determination needs to be made as to whether an embryo or fetus is human life in the first place. If a fetus is regarded as not a living human then where is the moral wrong? But if it is then this would breach the taking of an innocent human life for no justified reason. As far as the experts are concerned (Pediatricians) an embryo is regarded as human life so this would mean that abortion is morally wrong.

Polygami, what is "the moral objective truth"?

This is an interesting one. Christianity believes a male can only have one wife. It is interesting that western secular societies also support this position. The question for non-religious positions against Polygamy is why. What basis do they use to declare that it is morally wrong and then force this onto others like its an objective moral?

Religion; what is "the moral objective truth"?

I don't think religion itself is moral. if you mean which religion holds the truth to morality then this is a complex debate that needs a lot of discussions. A case can be made that Christianity is the only one true religion and therefore holds the truth to morality.

Age of consent, what is "the moral objective truth"?

What age is regarded as consent has nothing to do with morality. The moral value here is that humans mature and there is a point where they may not understand the complexities of relationships and sex. But whether it is a specific age is not what determines the moral value. The moral value is that a young person should not be taken advantage of.

Just because there is some disagreement about what age a person can be mature enough to understand what they are getting themselves into does not mean morality about this is subjective. The point is that everyone agrees that a young person should not be taken advantage of.

Alcohol; what is "the moral objective truth"?

The same as the age of consent. The moral is young people should not be allowed to drink as they are not able to handle it and it is an adult's duty of care to ensure they are protected. So the moral is about not harming young people or putting them in harm's way and everyone agrees on this. Just because there may be disagreement on what the age is that a young person can handle alcohol doesn't mean the moral value for this is subjective.

Smoking; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Same again as alcohol. But do you notice that secular society imposes a certain moral position on alcohol and smoking like they hold the moral truth? Why should anyone be able to do this under a subjective system if there is no real independent measure for morality? Why is one view of morality imposed on everyone? Isn't that an objective moral position.

Drugs; what is "the moral objective truth"?

Once again the same as smoking and alcohol. Why should one view be forced on everyone else who has their own personal views on this? many people may subjectively think drugs are OK but they don't get a choice to push their view. Well, that is sort of changing with the legalization of pot.

Though this is more to do with money influencing whether it is moral or not which is one of the weaknesses of allowing subjective morality to dominate as it usually means those in power or who have the means to influence control morality because there is no independent measure of morality.

But smoking, drinking, and drugs are about abusing a person's body and as adults, we would have a duty of care to protect those who do not know better. An objective moral position such as a Christian one would say that any abuse of one's body is morally wrong. But I fail to see how there can be any objective stand beyond this as even if you claim it is about wellbeing, wellbeing can be argued to be a subjective view.

One person may think it is no good for human wellbeing healthwise, but another may make the argument that alcohol and drugs make a person happy and therefore promotes better human wellbeing. Human wellbeing can also be arbitrarily determined. Morality doesn't equate to human suffering or
happiness, nor does it equate to what helps us survive and thrive or not.

 

[stevevw]

Of course there are bases for it, just not "objective morality".

But that's a paradox as using any "basis" is taking an objective position. Whatever basis you come up with that will be the objective measure outside humans.

Cant, you argue why murder is wrong? Must you point to an "objective morality" to do so?

Unless there is an objective reference point how do you even make an argument for murder being wrong. It seems people appeal to arguments of why something is wrong like they intuitively know its wrong which is more or less acknowledging that we know of an objective measure. The ironic thing is when you try to appeal to any reason why murder is wrong that's going to apply to society that is still using some objective reference point.

Under a subjective system, there shouldn't be any objective reference point. The moment you cite that the reason why murder is wrong is that x then you are taking an objective moral position. That's because another person under the same subjective moral system may not view X as the reason why murder is wrong so what right have you got to force X onto them. Another person may think Y is the justified reason? Is not Y just as a valid view or is there some exclusiveness to moral positions of X.

Even if you say well X is about human wellbeing or safety another person can say but why is wellbeing and safety the measure. How does human suffering and happiness equate to what is right and wrong morally? What you can rationalize as being human wellbeing and happiness another can come up with other just as valid alternative reasons. Who can tell which is the right one as its all subjective?

 

[Kylie]

But that cannot work in a society that needs to have some independent measure so that we can judge morality properly rather than through personal "likes and dislikes".

You claim it can't work, but you don't show why it can't work.

 

[Kylie]

So are you saying that if a person goes around raping and killing people there is no independent moral standard apart from individual personal views that can say they are morally objectively wrong? Surely there is a common moral standard that determines that stealing, killing, assault, and child abuse are morally wrong. We prosecute people for doing those things so there must be some basis for this.

I have said countless times that people share common moral viewpoints because we are social creatures. That does not mean those viewpoints are based on anything objective. And the people who go around raping and killing obviously think it's morally fine for them to be doing it.

Is it now at the point where I am just repeating myself?

 

[stevevw]

You claim it can't work, but you don't show why it can't work.

I have shown it can't work time and time again. If there really only was subjective morality then there could be no way of forcing one set of morals onto society as we do. That's because there is no way to determine what one set of morals would be. It would be unfair to others who disagree with that one set as they have just as much right to put their version of morality forward as well. But the fact that society does go with one set and forces that on everyone shows that they believe in objective morality.

Let's use an example. If the rules of a footy game were determined subjectively then it follows that there would be no way to determine what the rules should be. The rules would only be presented as personal opinions of what the rules should be. It follows that if there is no fixed set of rules and that subjectivity is the only way to out what should be the rules then everyone involved has equal opportunity to determine what the rules would be.

Even if a group agreed on a certain set of rules others would have the right to challenge this because there is no objective way that the group can prove their agreed rules are the best. Any ideas that anyone including agreed rules have to way of determining what is best for that game. So the game would either not be able to be played as there would always be conflicts about what was fair or unbiased or a certain set of rules would have to be forced onto others making them objective anyway.

But people would have the right to continually undermine those rules as they have no authority to be the only set used. The fact that society is able to operate at all is because we can impose one set of rules based on some form of objective measure whether that be by intuition, natural law, or based on human some external measures like wellbeing.

 

[stevevw]

I have said countless times that people share common moral viewpoints because we are social creatures. That does not mean those viewpoints are based on anything objective. And the people who go around raping and killing obviously think it's morally fine for them to be doing it.

Is it now at the point where I am just repeating myself?

So if those people who go around with the subjective view that raping and killing are morally OK what gives anyone the right to say they are morally wrong and stop them or say their moral view is wrong if there is no objective way to tell they are wrong.