Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

No, there is nu justice, just us.

That’s a nice catchphrase but it makes no sense. Of course, there is justice. If there is no justice, then why do people protest about justice and demand justice. Why do we have a legal system that disperses justice? What are we basing that justice on? How do we measure justice?

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

No it is because there are objective morals and because of people speaking out and acting like there are objective morals that we have made progress. If someone stands up against the popular moral view and claims/protests that they are all wrong that is taking an objective stand. Because under a subjective system a person cannot do that. That is pitting one personal view against another and saying that one of those views is objectively wrong. That doesn't make sense under a subjective system.

A different subjective view is just a different "like, preference or trend that has nothing to do with moral values so no one can object or protest about other people's subjective moral views. So for morality to change people have to speak out about the existing morals and say that it is wrong regardless of people's personal opinion. That is taking an objective stand.

But as morals don't exist independently from humans we can discuss, weigh, make changes.

If morals don't exist independently of humans then there is no way to determine what is truly right and wrong. Any discussion, weighting up things, and making changes is a meaningless and futile exercise. Otherwise, you tell me what is the reference point people are using to determine what is right and wrong.

If morals were independent and timeless this would be futile.

Objective morality is not timeless; you are thinking of absolute morality which never changes regardless of the situation IE Rule-based (deontology). Objective morality is applied to the situation and can change so there is an objectively right and wrong moral for each situation.

You still haven't answered my questions btw.

What questions were those. Are you talking about these ones?
1. Where is this ”objective morality”?
2. How can we measure it or even find out what it entails?
3. What does it mean? What happens when we go against ”objective morality”?

Like I said question 1 is irrelevant to proving objective is wasted exercise. But I will give an answer anyway to show you that it is irrelevant. Objective morality lives in everyone. They are moral laws that a transcendent being put in us on our conscience. Question 2 I have partly answered in saying that it is our lived moral experience (the way people act/react) our intuition that we know certain things are always right and wrong regardless of subjective views is how we observe objective morality and measure it. Question 3 is a bit vague. But I sort of answered that the post before this one when answering your question why does it matter if something is ”objectively wrong”?.

The problem is like I said is that we are debating epistemology (details about "how we know that objective moral values exist?”). That can go on forever and will never really accomplish much as far as proving if objective morality exists (ontology). Because anything I say you can dispute and anything you dispute doesn't mean objective morals don't exist.

 

[VirOptimus]

That’s a nice catchphrase but it makes no sense. Of course, there is justice. If there is no justice, then why do people protest about justice and demand justice. Why do we have a legal system that disperses justice? What are we basing that justice on? How do we measure justice?

No it is because there are objective morals and because of people speaking out and acting like there are objective morals that we have made progress. If someone stands up against the popular moral view and claims/protests that they are all wrong that is taking an objective stand. Because under a subjective system a person cannot do that. That is pitting one personal view against another and saying that one of those views is objectively wrong. That doesn't make sense under a subjective system.

A different subjective view is just a different "like, preference or trend that has nothing to do with moral values so no one can object or protest about other people's subjective moral views. So for morality to change people have to speak out about the existing morals and say that it is wrong regardless of people's personal opinion. That is taking an objective stand.

If morals don't exist independently of humans then there is no way to determine what is truly right and wrong. Any discussion, weighting up things, and making changes is a meaningless and futile exercise. Otherwise, you tell me what is the reference point people are using to determine what is right and wrong. Objective morality is not timeless; you are thinking of absolute morality which never changes regardless of the situation IE Rule-based (deontology). Objective morality is applied to the situation and can change so there is an objectively right and wrong moral for each situation.

What questions were those. Are you talking about these ones?
1. Where is this ”objective morality”?
2. How can we measure it or even find out what it entails?
3. What does it mean? What happens when we go against ”objective morality”?

Like I said question 1 is irrelevant to proving objective is wasted exercise. But I will give an answer anyway to show you that it is irrelevant. Objective morality lives in everyone. They are moral laws that a transcendent being put in us on our conscience. Question 2 I have partly answered in saying that it is our lived moral experience (the way people act/react) our intuition that we know certain things are always right and wrong regardless of subjective views is how we observe objective morality and measure it. Question 3 is a bit vague. But I sort of answered that the post before this one when answering your question why does it matter if something is ”objectively wrong”?.

The problem is like I said is that we are debating epistemology (details about "how we know that objective moral values exist?”). That can go on forever and will never really accomplish much as far as proving if objective morality exists (ontology). Because anything I say you can dispute and anything you dispute doesn't mean objective morals don't exist.

yawn. Same same and still no support, it all boils down to ”because god(s)”. How tiresome.

 

[stevevw]

Difference Between Same and Similar | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms
That’s the same thing you said before! I objected to it then, and I object to it now

OK I'm getting mixed up. The important thing in what I am saying is that under subjective morality moral values don't have any independent grounding. So they are more like a person's preferences, opinions, views, likes, and dislikes.

Well the other poster was as wrong as you are; I’m sure I let him know it too

So what about all the links to academic articles where experts are saying the same thing.

This makes my point when he says “Universality and necessity are not precisely the features that are not attributed to the subjective. When it comes to moral issues, they are not universality applied.

I agree that subjective morality is not a universal morality. But what has that got to do with likes and dislikes?

The real dispute? Here he seems to think he knows better than we know what is going on inside of our heads. Here he is wrong.

The article is not speaking from an individual perspective. This is a general description of what subjective morality is that is agreed by moral philosophers as a whole. They are not commenting on what is inside a person's head (doing their thinking). They are giving a description of subjectivity itself. That it is more about the person (subject) and the way they see things, their views, opinions, likes and dislikes, preferences, who speak about something such as a moral than the something or moral itself.

I’ve been saying all along that objective is demonstrable/verifiable. The effects Insulin has on diabetes is demonstrable/verifiable. The moral issue concerning abortion, progressive tax structures, or whatever moral issues that come to mind is not demonstratable/verifiable.

Some things can be demonstrated to be objectively true without being a physical thing we can measure. Though we cannot measure it directly we can measure the effects it has on something else. This is used in science all the time.

Psychologists can use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and other diagnostic tools to determine someone with various kinds of mental illness. This is objective enough to be used in court as evidence. We know that love is a real thing but we cannot measure it directly. But we can measure its effects. There are some things like Dark matter and energy that we cannot see but scientists say they can measure its effects to verify it.

 

[Speedwell]

OK I'm getting mixed up. The important thing in what I am saying is that under subjective morality moral values don't have any independent grounding. So they are more like a person's preferences, opinions, views, likes, and dislikes.

Subjective morality has the same grounding as that which you claim for objective morality: the promotion of human well-being.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- We know that love is a real thing but we cannot measure it directly. But we can measure its effects. There are some things like Dark matter and energy that we cannot see but scientists say they can measure its effects to verify it.

”Love” is just a reaction in the brain, nothing more nothing less. Its not a physical, real thing.

 

[stevevw]

It is a possible by-product but not a necessary one.

Yes, I agree.

BTW, you might do well to contemplate the difference between "transient" and "transcendent."

Yeah sorry about that.

Well caught. I was in error. My position is that the objectivity of morality is an unfalsifiable proposition, so I can never say that there is no such thing.

Yes that has been my position all along for those who claim there is no objective morality.

No, we don't agree. It is possible that morality is objective, but it is up to you to demonstrate that it is true.

Actually you were saying that there may be objective morality but you reject the transcendent moral lawgiver and that people can intentionally compose moral objectives through conscious rational discourse and are looking for a 3rd option to explain the objectiveness of morality.
Yes, if there is shown to be objective morality then a transcendent lawgiver would be a logically possible source

The Bible tells us that there are laws which we are supposed to follow. Obedient behavior is not necessarily moral behavior.

God says that His moral laws are written on our hearts and that even before the Law people knew them. This is the intuitive knowledge we have of right and wrong. That some things are always wrong regardless of subjective morality. There is no subjectivity to God's laws, to acting morally. God will judge all according to their deeds and that implies moral obligations which in turn implies a moral objectives.

It means much the same thing as your assertion that moral law is based on securing human well-being, and is no more a statement of moral objectivity.

I do not support moral objectivity; I merely accept it as an unnecessary possibility.

OK it just seems you were in conflict about how subjective morality cannot determine moral truths yet people by nature or intuition seek moral truths and you were looking for a compromise or alternative to what has been proposed that could fit or sit better.

All of which is fully explained by an internalized subjective morality.

I find this hard to believe that this can be explained by a subjective position. People say that certain acts are always morally wrong despite subjective moral views. They condemn and protest other subjective views and say that people are wrong and sick for having such views and that no one could ever say that those views are right in other words are objectively wrong. That seems to go against subjective morality and cannot be explained as a subjective position.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually you were saying that there may be objective morality but you reject the transcendent moral lawgiver and that people can intentionally compose moral objectives through conscious rational discourse and are looking for a 3rd option to explain the objectiveness of morality.
Yes, if there is shown to be objective morality then a transcendent lawgiver would be a logically possible source.

No, I do not reject the transcendent lawgiver. I'm not an atheist, remember? I regard the existence of a transcended lawgiver--God--as an unfalsifiable proposition in the same way I regard the existence of objective morality as an unfalsifiable proposition.

OK it just seems you were in conflict about how subjective morality cannot determine moral truths yet people by nature or intuition seek moral truths and you were looking for a compromise or alternative to what has been proposed that could fit or sit better.

I'm satisfied with my understanding of the matter and see no need for compromise or alternatives.

I find this hard to believe that this can be explained by a subjective position. People say that certain acts are always morally wrong despite subjective moral views. They condemn and protest other subjective views and say that people are wrong and sick for having such views and that no one could ever say that those views are right in other words are objectively wrong. That seems to go against subjective morality and cannot be explained as a subjective position.

Yes, you would like us to think it "seems" so. Which is why, I suppose, you have been striving so industriously (and, I'm beginning to think, dishonestly) to convince us that moral subjectivity is the same as moral nihilism.

 

[stevevw]

Subjective morality has the same grounding as that which you claim for objective morality: the promotion of human well-being.

Though I use human wellbeing as an example of how someone could explain objective morality I disagree that it can be entirely objective. As you said it is not necessarily objective. The problem I see is that what is determined as good human wellbeing does not really equate to morally good. Comparing a good life with a bad life is not a moral contrast. It’s a contrast between a pleasurable life and a miserable life and there’s no reason to equate pleasure and misery with morally right and wrong.

What is being determined as making up wellbeing is still a subjective measure. A psychopath can get pleasure and happiness out of what they do and that could equate to wellbeing. If there is no independent measure then if what is determined as socially needed to survive changes with environments then environments may create a situation where what may be considered wrong for human wellbeing now will be considered good in some future circumstances.

For example. Say it becomes necessary to kill people because there are not enough resources or food to go around then killing may become a necessary evil that will bring pleasure to the survivors.

 

[Speedwell]

Though I use human wellbeing as an example of how someone could explain objective morality I disagree that it can be entirely objective. As you said it is not necessarily objective. The problem I see is that what is determined as good human wellbeing does not really equate to morally good. Comparing a good life with a bad life is not a moral contrast. It’s a contrast between a pleasurable life and a miserable life and there’s no reason to equate pleasure and misery with morally right and wrong.

Correct, and that is not what subjective morality is about.

 

[stevevw]

And we've also established that you need to do more than just make the claim if you want us to believe it.

Yet again, the claim is all we get.

But its not a claim. I am citing what people actually do. They claim certain wrongs are always wrong despite subjective opinion and that these wrongs can never be right regardless of any rationalization or justification for them. This is what society often does and we see it all the time. This is what I have been saying is the lived moral experience we see. I gave you ample examples.

It isn't just about quantity as in "just because many people do it" doesn't prove objective morality. This is about quality. That people contradict their own subjective morality like some inner force is making them do it (conscience). They don't even believe in their own moral position in that they contradicts it in real living situations. What we observe is the real indication of what people believe and not what they subjectively claim and that real lived experience we see has all the hallmarks of objective morality.

You support subjective morality right. So I will ask you. Do you think that it is morally wrong to sexually abuse a child for fun despite anyone saying that it is OK? That any person who says it is OK no matter what reason they give that it is still morally wrong despite their subjective opinion.

 

[stevevw]

Correct, and that is not what subjective morality is about.

What is it about then.

 

[Ken-1122]

And that's very different from saying that your moral code is limited to likes and dislikes. Likes, dislikes, and preferences are the only things you have to justify your judgements.

How is it different?

They're the only tools you have at your disposal in that regard.

What about empathy?

When I asked you to justify "murder is wrong" you eventually answered that you preferred society to be that way.

Murder isn’t the only moral issue; what about all the others? What about abortion? The use of Nuclear weapons during war? Polygamy? Eating meat? What about male circumcision? female circumcision? Are you gonna claim all moral issues I deal with are limited to what I like or dislike? If so, what are you basing this on? What proof do you have?

Sure I do. An argument's validity doesn't rest on who it's directed at any more than who presented it.

Can you list an outside source to justify your claim? Or is this just another one of your empty claims.

You're not making a point when you state an opinion. You didn't say anything more meaningful to the discussion than, "Ice cream is tasty". You can plug yours ears and yell, "Yes-huh!" all you want, you're wrong.

Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. You need to prove when I said “nobody makes ice cream flavor a moral issue” and the person I was speaking to agreed; that I did not make a point. Don’t just say I didn’t make a point, prove it!

Why? Why does "more effect" = "more important"? If someone commits fraud they can steal millions of dollars from a corporation. But if my wife gets mugged and her purse stolen the thieves aren't going to get anywhere near that much. The effect on the corporation is measurably greater than the effect on my finances, but I don't find that to be as important. Why am I incorrect?

I determine each moral case on a case by case basis.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok all I am saying is that under subjective morality moral values are used like personal opinions about what someone "likes or dislikes". "prefers" similar to how they "like or dislike" certain foods. It cannot determine whether a moral action is objectively right or wrong but only says that a person prefers that moral act rather than another.

What about cheating on a test? I might know it is wrong but do it because it will help me get the job I want.

Then how do you explain that even people who like you support subjective morality and all the links I posted say that subjective morals are the same as "likes and dislikes".

They are wrong too!

Then why do some people sometimes do the opposite of each other for a specific moral act. One chooses to steal and another chooses not to steal. If there was no choice in the matter then there would be no determination about whether something is good or bad. It would be all over the place, people acting morally arbitrarily.

Subjective morality is not about not having a choice in the matter.

Those who support human wellbeing for what is right and wrong say that wellbeing can be measured by science for what makes a human happy and healthy physically and mentally. So that scientific measure is the objective standard. Any act that damages a human's physical and mental state is regarded as wrong. We can measure wellbeing through medical and psychological tests.

I agree! If someone subjectively bases their moral views on wellbeing, that is something that can be scientifically verified. But that would be more of a case for subjective not objective.

 

[VirOptimus]

What about cheating on a test? I might know it is wrong but do it because it will help me get the job I want.

They are wrong too!

Subjective morality is not about not having a choice in the matter.

I agree! If someone subjectively bases their moral views on wellbeing, that is something that can be scientifically verified. But that would be more of a case for subjective not objective.

It would relly really help if he understood the terminology correctly.

 

[Ken-1122]

OK so if someone came up with a reason why sexually abusing a child for fun can you really say that it is the right thing to do.

I will go even further. If a mad man had a nuclear bomb and was going to set it off in New York city killing millions of men women and children, and the only thing that would prevent him from doing it would be to kill a specific child, don’t you think a case could be made to sacrifice the child in order to save millions? I’m not asking if you would agree with it, I’m only asking if a case could be made that it is the right thing to do.

There is a difference between the perception of something and our intuition about something. Our perception can be influenced by a number of things (personal life experience, personal biases, etc) and that can change according to who we are and our changing experiences. But our conscience is like a separate thing in us that will tell us when we are doing something wrong.

Can you give an example of our perceptions being different than our conscience?

We all have this and intuitively know that certain things are wrong (like sexually abusing a child) and some things are right (loving and caring for a child). It is this knowing that certain things are right and wrong that I am saying is our lived moral experience. It is this that is used to support objective morality with the logical argument.

What about polygamy? What about male circumcision? Female circumcision? Eating meat? Nuclear weapons during war? What does our lived moral experiences tell us about those moral issues? Which ones are right, which ones are wrong; and why?

There are non-material things that can be determined as an objective. We live like this every day with lots of things that we cannot measure the same way as material/physical objectives to determine if they are objective. There are also different ways to measure things in our material world without seeing them directly.

Examples?

I agree to an extent that something like beauty is subjective as in beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But there is a science that can determine what can be a beautiful face for example. They have research what makes a face beautiful to people and they have found that certain properties like symmetry. Faces that we deem attractive tend to be symmetrical.
What makes a pretty face? | Science News for Students

Science only lists features of what will often result in a pretty face, it doesn’t claim if the face has those features the result will be a pretty face

We also know certain things like love are real even though love is not a material thing we can pick up and measure directly.

What system/tool is used to measure love?

But we can see and measure how love is experienced and actioned. Otherwise, we could never say that love is a real thing and be confident that we are loved.

Do you believe love is subjective? or objective.

If for example everyone in the world was deaf and could not hear sounds that don't mean that there is no sound. So it is with morality. Though we cannot pick them up they still have values and we can see how people act and react in the way they live and this can be measured to determine morality.

Sound waves can be verified using specific tools. What tool do you know of that can verify moral issues?

 

[stevevw]

No, I do not reject the transcendent lawgiver. I'm not an atheist, remember?

Then how can you say there are no objective morals if you don't reject a transcendent moral lawgiver.

I regard the existence of a transcended lawgiver--God--as an unfalsifiable proposition in the same way I regard the existence of objective morality as an unfalsifiable proposition.

Yet some people say that because there are objective morals then this is support for God in the moral argument for God.

I'm satisfied with my understanding of the matter and see no need for compromise or alternatives.

Ye people act and react like there are objective morals. Most people admit that there needs to be certain moral rights and wrongs that cannot be the result of personal views because that is what we know to be true.

Yes, you would like us to think it "seems" so. Which is why, I suppose, you have been striving so industriously (and, I'm beginning to think, dishonestly) to convince us that moral subjectivity is the same as moral nihilism.

But it is not a case that I would like anyone to think that. It is something derived from the observation of how people live morally. Like someone else said on this forum that they agreed that people do not live up to what they subjectively claim about morality. They contradict themselves by taking an objective position.

If you asked anyone with a subjective position about certain wrongs and whether there can be a subjective position and they will admit that certain things are wrong regardless of subjective morality. That they are always wrong no matter what.

 

[Speedwell]

Then how can you say there are no objective morals if you don't reject a transcendent moral lawgiver. Yet some people say that because there are objective morals then this is support for God in the moral argument for God.

Ye people act and react like there are objective morals. Most people admit that there needs to be certain moral rights and wrongs that cannot be the result of personal views because that is what we know to be true.

But it is not a case that I would like anyone to think that. It is something derived from the observation of how people live morally. Like someone else said on this forum that they agreed that people do not live up to what they subjectively claim about morality. They contradict themselves by taking an objective position.

If you asked anyone with a subjective position about certain wrongs and whether there can be a subjective position and they will admit that certain things are wrong regardless of subjective morality. That they are always wrong no matter what.

That there are universally acknowledged moral precepts is not the same as objective morality.
The position that morals are a matter of personal opinion is not the same as subjective morality.

 

[stevevw]

What about cheating on a test? I might know it is wrong but do it because it will help me get the job I want.

Then that shows you have breached your own moral position. But if there are only subjective morals what real moral have you breached. All you are really doing is doing what you "like" or prefer to do as it will give you some advantage in life.

They are wrong too!

On what basis do you determine they are wrong.

Subjective morality is not about not having a choice in the matter.

Is anything about having a choice.

I agree! If someone subjectively bases their moral views on wellbeing, that is something that can be scientifically verified. But that would be more of a case for subjective not objective.

You said earlier that an objective has to be scientifically verified.

 

[Speedwell]

You said earlier that an objective has to be scientifically verified.

Their existence has to be empirically verified, not their content. The content of a moral precept has little to do with whether it is objective or not. A subjective moral precept can be just as useful (by whatever measure you want to apply) as an objective moral precept.

 

[Kaon]

Their existence has to be empirically verified, not their content. The content of a moral precept has little to do with whether it is objective or not. A subjective moral precept can be just as useful (by whatever measure you want to apply) as an objective moral precept.

How can any morality be objective if it is self-verified?

Morality frames human ideology in a way that promotes humanity - for the same of humanity. But, what makes your idea of what is right...right? A consensus? Feelings?

What about morality is objective?