Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

I could come up with a scenario where it could be considered the right thing to do.

That may be the case but does that mean its morally good or just some sick reason to justify the act. Can you honestly say that it would make the act morally good?

If you make the claim and provide empirical evidence to support your claim, it would give us a reason to believe you.

Your not understanding the logical argument in the first place. You cannot show any empirical evidence of where a transcendent moral lawgiver is because "they are transient". They don't occupy our material world to be measured that way.

That is why we use a logical argument. Logical arguments can provide support for a proposition. That is why I am using the lived moral experience as evidence for objective morality. If we compare it to our lived experience of the physical world it would go like this.

To prove that our experience of our physical world is real you would have to show that what we sense around us is real and not some matrix where we are being fed a virtual signal of our physical world. Just like proving a transient lawgiver you have to be able to know there are no other dimensions we could exist. You cannot do that just like you cannot know of another realm where a transient lawgiver would exist.

Yet we still believe our physical world is real and not some matrix based on our lived experience of it through our senses of it. It is the same for our lived experience of our morality. We know we have a conscience and that some things are always wrong (objectively wrong) through our intuition of it. We act and react like there are objective moral values and duties just as we act and react in a way that our physical world is what it is and not some matrix.

Therefore just like we are justified to believe that our physical world is real based on our lived experience of it. So are we justified to believe that our lived moral experience of objective morality is justified based on our experience of it?

That is the logical argument. Until you can come up with some defeater that our experience of morality is totally unreal and unreliable just like a defeater would have to show that our experience of our physical world is unreliable and unreal then we are justified to believe our experience of morality.

If you provide direct evidence…yeah!

Morality is not a material thing so therefore the evidence cannot be direct.

It would give us a reason to take your claim seriously.

Logical arguments are used all the time to make and support propositions.

 

[Speedwell]

That may be the case but does that mean its morally good or just some sick reason to justify the act. Can you honestly say that it would make the act morally good?

Your not understanding the logical argument in the first place. You cannot show any empirical evidence of where a transcendent moral lawgiver is because "they are transient". They don't occupy our material world to be measured that way.

That is why we use a logical argument. Logical arguments can provide support for a proposition. That is why I am using the lived moral experience as evidence for objective morality. If we compare it to our lived experience of the physical world it would go like this.

To prove that our experience of our physical world is real you would have to show that what we sense around us is real and not some matrix where we are being fed a virtual signal of our physical world. Just like proving a transient lawgiver you have to be able to know there are no other dimensions we could exist. You cannot do that just like you cannot know of another realm where a transient lawgiver would exist.

Yet we still believe our physical world is real and not some matrix based on our lived experience of it through our senses of it. It is the same for our lived experience of our morality. We know we have a conscience and that some things are always wrong (objectively wrong) through our intuition of it. We act and react like there are objective moral values and duties just as we act and react in a way that our physical world is what it is and not some matrix.

Therefore just like we are justified to believe that our physical world is real based on our lived experience of it. So are we justified to believe that our lived moral experience of objective morality is justified based on our experience of it?

That is the logical argument. Until you can come up with some defeater that our experience of morality is totally unreal and unreliable just like a defeater would have to show that our experience of our physical world is unreliable and unreal then we are justified to believe our experience of morality.

Morality is not a material thing so therefore the evidence cannot be direct.

Logical arguments are used all the time to make and support propositions.

But according to your most recent argument "some things are always wrong" not because they are deemed to be so by a transcendent moral law-giver but because they are always detrimental to human well-being. Thus the existence of this objective morality is no longer an argument for the existence of the transcendent law-giver.

 

[Moral Orel]

The person I was responding to made the claim that morality is about likes and dislikes. That when a person says a moral action is wrong, they are saying they don't like that action. that is what I was responding to; not some issue about working and having money. Care to respond to the conversation at hand?

I did. Sorry the analogy went over your head. You said that if what he said was true, then you would never do anything immoral. But I pointed out that people do things they dislike all the time.

Knowledge about moral issues is subjective; Yes!

So, it's just your subjective opinion that morality is subjective and not objective. K.

That doesn't disprove the point I made. Care to try again?

The point you made was a logical fallacy. I named the fallacy you committed, thus disproving your point. Look up argumentum ad populum to understand why the point you made is fallacious.

 

[Ken-1122]

That may be the case but does that mean its morally good or just some sick reason to justify the act. Can you honestly say that it would make the act morally good?

I didn’t say “good”, I said the right thing to do.

Your not understanding the logical argument in the first place. You cannot show any empirical evidence of where a transcendent moral lawgiver is because "they are transient". They don't occupy our material world to be measured that way.

That is why we use a logical argument. Logical arguments can provide support for a proposition. That is why I am using the lived moral experience as evidence for objective morality. If we compare it to our lived experience of the physical world it would go like this.

To prove that our experience of our physical world is real you would have to show that what we sense around us is real and not some matrix where we are being fed a virtual signal of our physical world. Just like proving a transient lawgiver you have to be able to know there are no other dimensions we could exist. You cannot do that just like you cannot know of another realm where a transient lawgiver would exist.

Yet we still believe our physical world is real and not some matrix based on our lived experience of it through our senses of it. It is the same for our lived experience of our morality. We know we have a conscience and that some things are always wrong (objectively wrong) through our intuition of it.

I disagree. Though most do have a conscience, there is no consensus on what is right or wrong due to our intuition of it. What we deem right vs wrong is in a constant state of change.

We act and react like there are objective moral values and duties just as we act and react in a way that our physical world is what it is and not some matrix.

Therefore just like we are justified to believe that our physical world is real based on our lived experience of it. So are we justified to believe that our lived moral experience of objective morality is justified based on our experience of it?

That is the logical argument. Until you can come up with some defeater that our experience of morality is totally unreal and unreliable just like a defeater would have to show that our experience of our physical world is unreliable and unreal then we are justified to believe our experience of morality.

.[/QUOTE]
You are definitely overthinking this. You seem to acting like there is this thing called objective morality, and another thing called subjective morality. It doesn’t work that way. There are some things that are objective; like physical things, systems like math, or measurements, then there are things that are subjective; like things that exist in our heads such as beauty, funny, etc. I believe morality fits under the category of subjective because as listed in the definitions I provided, in order for something to be objective it has to be verifiable. Subjective does not have to be verifiable (like beauty and funny) Do you believe beauty and funny are objective too? Is there some type of a transit law giver that defines what is beautiful or not? Funny or not? And if there is, what makes him a lawgiver if nobody listens to him? If I stand on a soap box and proclaim myself the moral lawgiver, but nobody listens to me, am I really a moral law giver?

 

[Ken-1122]

I did. Sorry the analogy went over your head. You said that if what he said was true, then you would never do anything immoral.

I said I would never have the desire to do anything immoral

So, it's just your subjective opinion that morality is subjective and not objective. K.

I used the dictionary definition to make my argument.

The point you made was a logical fallacy. I named the fallacy you committed, thus disproving your point. Look up argumentum ad populum to understand why the point you made is fallacious.

That’s your job. I made the point that it is absurd to try to equate the moral issue of assault and battery with Ice cream flavor because nobody considers ice cream flavor a moral issue. Now if you want to dispute what I said, make your point! Otherwise my claim stands.

 

[Moral Orel]

I said I would never have the desire to do anything immoral

Why not?

I used the dictionary definition to make my argument.

So what? It's a moral issue, so it's subjective, that's what you said.

That’s your job. I made the point that it is absurd to try to equate the moral issue of assault and battery with Ice cream flavor because nobody considers ice cream flavor a moral issue. Now if you want to dispute what I said, make your point! Otherwise my claim stands.

Okay, let's start with your claim that "nobody considers ice cream flavor a moral issue". Prove it. If you can't prove it, then you haven't made a point, you've made an empty assertion, and we can safely discard it.

 

[stevevw]

You didn't say “similar” to likes and dislikes, you said the same as likes and dislikes.

"Similar" and the "same" mean the same thing. But for argument's sake, I will change it to "likes and dislikes" are the same as "rights and wrongs" when it comes to subjective morality.

I don’t make the assumption that likes and dislikes don’t motivate people to do right; I just disagreed that subjective morals are the same as likes and dislikes as you claimed.

But other posters on this thread have told you that subjective morality is the same as "likes and dislikes" Plus I have posted support for this before IE

The Metaphysics of the Moral Law: Kant's Deduction of Freedom
Universality and necessity are precisely the features that are not attributed to the subjective in our sense; the usual force of ‘subjective’ in our sense is to deny these, especially universality. (Thus, for example, the “likes and dislikes” of taste, for us, are subjective and, in the relevant sense, peculiar to agents.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_the_Moral_Law_Kant's_Deduction_of_Freedom

Subjectivism (relativism)
May clarify what people are arguing about
subjectivism may enable people disagreeing over the rightness or the wrongness of some issue to see that the real dispute is not about objective truth but about their own preferences (likes or dislikes)
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Subjectivism

Objective truths.
But moral choices are not subjective, like choosing an ice-cream flavor. Rather moral choices are more like insulin. Insulin, as many of you know, controls diabetes. It doesn’t matter if I think chocolate ice cream will control diabetes because the truth is that it will not. Controlling diabetes correctly requires insulin. Regardless of my personal preference (likes or dislikes) or feeling, the statement “Insulin controls diabetes” is objective Truth. Objective truths, as opposed to subjective preferences (likes or dislikes), are based on the external world. They are related to the world independently of how we think or feel.
https://www.amazon.com/ETHIX-Being-Bold-Whatever-World/dp/0805445196

Morality is either subjective or objective; it’s not something that you choose.

A person can choose to act morally right or wrong. Whether morals themselves are purely a subjective choice or objective is a different matter.

 

[stevevw]

It seems to me that at the beginning you were arguing for objective morality as evidence for the existence of a transcendent lawgiver. But if morality is derived from a scientific evaluation of human well-being then that argument falls flat. The existence of what you are now calling objective morality no longer requires a transcendent source.

Though arguing that objective morality is evidence for a transient moral lawgiver is a good way to support a transient lawgiver it would be useless to do so if we cannot show evidence that there are objective moral values and duties. So it is more relevant to first argue that there is objective morality.

You were making an assertion and an objective claim yourself in saying there is no objective morality. I have merely proposed one way that objective morality can be established to show how your claim was baseless even though it is an atheist claim.

But that does not mean there is no transient moral lawgiver. That is why I have presented the logical argument that I posted previously for support for objective morality based on our lived moral experience. The support for this lies in the examples I have given for how people act and react objectively when it comes to morality. Now you need to come up with a defeat of this logical argument like all logical arguments should be dealt with and not just make assertions and claims alone.

 

[stevevw]

If you must evaluate the consequences of an action to decide whether it is moral, then your morality is not objective.

As far as determining objective morality as measured by human wellbeing how can you determine that something is a scientific fact without evaluating (doing tests)? That's what science does and science determines objective facts.

 

[stevevw]

I think that would be the general opinion, but just because a moral precept is widely or even universally shared does not make it objective.

Wait a minute you just agreed that the general opinion would be that certain depraved and sick acts like sexually abusing a child would be considered morally wrong despite subjective views. That is acknowledging objective morality. You are saying that it doesn't matter about subjective opinions that may claim it is a good act as they are wrong objectively.

 

[stevevw]

Not necessarily. It could be a universally shared subjective moral wrong.

That's not what I asked. Despite you saying it may be a universally subjective opinion I am asking would anyone who had the subjective opinion that the act was morally good still be objectively wrong as the act can never be considered good regardless of subjective opinions.

 

[Kylie]

Wait a minute you just agreed that the general opinion would be that certain depraved and sick acts like sexually abusing a child would be considered morally wrong despite subjective views. That is acknowledging objective morality. You are saying that it doesn't matter about subjective opinions that may claim it is a good act as they are wrong objectively.

I thought we'd established that just because something is the general opinion, doesn't malke it objective fact.

 

[stevevw]

I thought we'd established that just because something is the general opinion, doesn't make it objective fact.

There is a difference here though. That is the qualification that the act is still wrong despite subjective morality. Despite subjective opinion means that it is always going to be wrong and no individual opinion can change that. In other words, a subjective opinion claiming it is wrong can be considered objectively wrong as well.

 

[VirOptimus]

As you often say that is an empty assertion. You give no account of how I am in error. You just say (in your own opinion I might add) which means nothing as far as truth is concerned that I am in error and that wellbeing cannot be verified. Yet I gave scientific verification and you still deny that. Science is objective.

There is a scientific measure of wellbeing. Therefore we only need to measure an act like rape scientifically to see if it affects wellbeing. It is a fact that rape can be scientifically measured to affect human wellbeing. You need to show how it is not a scientific measure and therefore not an objective measure and not just make baseless claims.

I’m not responsible for you education.

Again, wellbeing may be an argument for something but its not something that proves an ”objective morality”.

Look, this has been debated and studied for centuries. There are no data supporting objective morality, its just a metaphysical belief.

And you have still not answered my questions.

 

[VirOptimus]

There is a difference here though. That is the qualification that the act is still wrong despite subjective morality. Despite subjective opinion means that it is always going to be wrong and no individual opinion can change that. In other words, a subjective opinion claiming it is wrong can be considered objectively wrong as well.

And why does it matter if something is ”objectivly wrong”?

 

[VirOptimus]

As far as determining objective morality as measured by human wellbeing how can you determine that something is a scientific fact without evaluating (doing tests)? That's what science does and science determines objective facts.

So if a person feels very good when torturing animals thats objectivly good and right?

 

[Speedwell]

Though arguing that objective morality is evidence for a transient moral lawgiver is a good way to support a transient lawgiver it would be useless to do so if we cannot show evidence that there are objective moral values and duties. So it is more relevant to first argue that there is objective morality.

But if it can be arrived at by consideration of human well-being, then it may be the product of a transcendent law-giver, but is not necessarily so.

You were making an assertion and an objective claim yourself in saying there is no objective morality. I have merely proposed one way that objective morality can be established to show how your claim was baseless even though it is an atheist claim.

False on two counts:

1. I have never said that there is no objective morality, only that you haven't demonstrated that there is.
2. I don't make "atheist claims" because I am not an atheist.

But that does not mean there is no transient moral lawgiver. That is why I have presented the logical argument that I posted previously for support for objective morality based on our lived moral experience. The support for this lies in the examples I have given for how people act and react objectively when it comes to morality. Now you need to come up with a defeat of this logical argument like all logical arguments should be dealt with and not just make assertions and claims alone.

"Lived moral experience" does not require that there is a transcendent law-giver or even that morality is objective. All it requires is that moral precepts be widely shared and internalized.

 

[stevevw]

And why does it matter if something is ”objectivly wrong”?

Because it gives us an independent measure of what is wrong rather than personal opinion. That way we can then have a standard that can eliminate crazy, delusional, selfish, biased, and harmful personal views and be left with a clear and good measure of right and wrong.

For example, if we use the example I used earlier that sexually abusing a child is objectively wrong. If we accept this as an objective moral then it determines crazy and sick views that it is OK to abuse a child as being objective wrong. It counts them out and gives society a unified moral position where we can stand against anyone who claims otherwise.

But under a subjective moral system because there is no clear united position people can rationalize and justify all sorts of moral positions including what most people would consider morally wrong. This has seen society allow a lot of damaging moral positions that undermine any attempt to create a safe and healthy society.

At present people that have these depraved and wrong views can think what I believe is OK because there is no clear measure of right and wrong. But with objective moral values, we can say no you are wrong because here is the moral truth.

The crazy thing is at the moment we try to do that anyway and condemn and protest about certain moral acts being wrong but that doesn't mean much or carry much weight under a subjective moral system.

 

[VirOptimus]

Because it gives us an independent measure of what is wrong rather than personal opinion. That way we can then have a standard that can eliminate crazy, delusional, selfish, biased, and harmful personal views and be left with a clear and good measure of right and wrong.

For example, if we use the example I used earlier that sexually abusing a child is objectively wrong. If we accept this as an objective moral then it determines crazy and sick views that it is OK to abuse a child as being objective wrong. It counts them out and gives society a unified moral position where we can stand against anyone who claims otherwise.

But under a subjective moral system because there is no clear united position people can rationalize and justify all sorts of moral positions including what most people would consider morally wrong. This has seen society allow a lot of damaging moral positions that undermine any attempt to create a safe and healthy society.

At present people that have these depraved and wrong views can think what I believe is OK because there is no clear measure of right and wrong. But with objective moral values, we can say no you are wrong because here is the moral truth.

The crazy thing is at the moment we try to do that anyway and condemn and protest about certain moral acts being wrong but that doesn't mean much or carry much weight under a subjective moral system.

No, there is nu justice, just us.

And quite frankly, that is just as it should be. If morals was objective, a real thing, then progression would be impossible.

But as morals doesnt exist independant from humans we can discuss, weigh, make changes. If morals was independent and timeless this would be futile.

You still havent answered my questions btw.

 

[stevevw]

But if it can be arrived at by consideration of human well-being, then it may be the product of a transcendent law-giver, but is not necessarily so.

Human wellbeing would be a logical by-product of any transient moral lawgiver.

False on two counts:

1. I have never said that there is no objective morality, only that you haven't demonstrated that there is.

OK I may have got you mixed up with someone else as I am debating a lot of people at the same time.

Anyway, so I did a review of our debate to ensure I was on the right track and did find you said this.
Correct, because "what is really right and wrong" is just another way of describing what you call objective morality, and there is no such thing.
But I am not sure how you were applying it. Nevertheless, if you say that there are objective morals then what is the problem. We agree there are objective morals.

2. I don't make "atheist claims" because I am not an atheist.

OK, that is interesting. So I was interested to know what your belief is and I am not sure. I understand it as some transient being but I am not sure why you don't think this being would not be a moral lawgiver as it makes most sense that if there are "right and wrong" and this needs an independent of humans then a transient lawgiver would be the most logical conclusion.

Then I found one post where you said
If you go to the Bible you will find that it tells us that God gave us the ability to contemplate the consequences of our actions and to classify those consequences as desirable or undesirable. In other words, He gave us the ability to construct a workable subjective morality.
I questioned this as the Bible does tell us that there is a moral law that we must follow. That Jesus does tell us that the Law still stands and quoted some verses. But you did not reply.

Then I noticed you were referring to some natural laws I think that may allow people to formulate objective moral values based on social interaction generally more agreeable. But I am not sure what this means. So it seems you support objective morality anyway and it's just a case of us disagreeing how this comes about.

"Lived moral experience" does not require that there is a transcendent law-giver or even that morality is objective. All it requires is that moral precepts be widely shared and internalized.

Lived moral experience is more than just widely shared morality and internalized. I am talking about how people and secular society as a whole in supporting the idea of morals being subjective actually contradict their own position because they act and react against that position like morals are objective.

In reacting against their own subjectively claimed morals they are exposing their real inner beliefs about morality. Something inside them goes against what they claim and people cannot help but react like morals are objective. We all know that there are certain wrongs that are always wrong despite people claiming morals are only subjective. I gave a number of examples earlier in this post. This is the lived moral experience I am talking about.

It is because of this lived moral experience which is an inner knowledge of right and wrong and because most people agree that certain moral acts are always right and wrong independent of humans despite subjective morality that this would point to the need for a transcendent law-giver.