Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

But only subjective to the person.

That's right. And it's the person who holds the morality. Thus explaining why it's all subjective, not objective.

because just saying that our sense of objective experience is not real is not enough. You need to show how it is not real. The same as you would have to show that our sense of the physical world is not real.

Why should I when you have already agreed to it? In post 1260, you said, "...our perception of our experiences is subjective..." If you agree that our perception of our experiences is subjective, then that's all that's needed to show that you and I both agree that our perception of the world and what happens is subjective and not objective.

I never said anything about subjective experiences leading to objective morals. I said our moral experience (the reactions we have to situations and with other people) indicate that we know certain things are objectively wrong. It has nothing to do with perception but rather a physical reaction in a certain way that we can't help but do despite our subjective view and claims.

So our moral experience indicates that some things are objectively wrong.

But since you said in post 1260 that our perception of our experiences is subjective, then you are indeed claiming that the subjective perception of our experiences is leading to an objective morality.

But it is not an input. It is output. A reaction that is objective. So its an action and not a thought or perception of an action or experience. It just happens and we can't help but react that way.

The input is our perception of our experiences. You said in post 1260 that it's subjective. Thus all the input is subjective, since it is based on our perception of what we experience. It can't be an objective reaction, because we are reacting to our subjective experience of it. So all the input we get about the world is subjective. The fact that we can't really control it doesn't make it objective.

But your using qualities or good and bad, right and wrong. What ultimate measure are you using to determine these things are good in the first place. Why is it so important to have empathy and not hurt people if there is no ultimate right and wrong. If you are just socially programmed to do that from an evolutionary process.

I do not have an ultimate measure. I go with how I think I'd react in that situation. I know that other people may have different views on certain moral issues. That's why it's all subjective.

So how can you appeal to objective morals of good or bad to figure out what is good and bad when there is no true good or bad. It is just an illusionary game people are playing with themselves and each other under subjective morality.

Of, for crying out loud... How many times do I have to spell it out for you? I'm not appealing to objective morality at all.

But that is no different from sharing likes and dislikes for food and means nothing about right and wrong morally.

And that's because both are subjective!

No these are relevant aspects of the moral argument. The examples I have give come from articles on the subject. I didn't just make that up. This is something I have studied supported by moral philosophy.

Okay, then someone else made it up.

Like I said some situations may need more thinking. That is another relative situation. So there are safe places with markings on the road and signs that tell the person when they can overtake. But the objective truth that driving on the wrong side of the road still upholds because of the fact that there are precautions that tell you that you can only do it in the designated places because you risk having an accident and killing someone.

That tells us that the system still recognizes that driving on the wrong side of the road is dangerous and wrong. Otherwise, try and imagine a person with a subjective view that driving on the wrong side of the road is OK. People would say it is not OK. Then the person would have to qualify that only where there are signs to safely take over. So they have contradicted their own subjective views. Then the other people would say so it is not OK to just drive on the wrong side of the road then.

You're still saying that it's objectively wrong except in the cases where it isn't. And that seems just like subjective to me.

 

[stevevw]

But the problem here is why does the abuser NOT think they are wrong. Shouldn't something objectively true lead all who consider a case to come to the same conclusion?

A rock in my front yard is objectively there. All who come to my yard will come to that conclusion.

The very fact that we cannot agree on morality shows it to be subjective.

You're assuming that everyone is of the right mind to be capable of assessing right and wrong and where others may have reason or motivation not to acknowledge the truth of right and wrong. But I would say usually most of the time people acknowledge when something is wrong or evil. They can't help it and it is usually the same for all regardless of subjective views.

Even a secular society will impose certain laws on everyone which acknowledge certain things are wrong for all without regard for individual subjective opinions. People who profess morals are subjective will react like they are objective. So the fact that people and society act contradictory to subjective morality points to there being certain rights and wrongs we all know about that are at work beyond us.

 

[Moral Orel]

Which pleasure are you referring to that everybody must value or enjoy; all of them? Some?

I mean pleasure itself, as in dopamine being released in the brain, the core of pleasure. I didn't mean "things that make people happy". Everyone likes that experience, but things get hairy when you realize that different things can cause the experience for different people. As an analogy, I'd say that our brain chemistry is a bit like binary computer language, and morality would be like the higher order languages such as Java or C++. Like I said, I fall on the side of subjective morality and all, but I think that there might kinda sorta be something of objective value. I don't want to conflate "intrinsic value" and "objective value", but they're darn close ain't they?

I think that if pleasure itself can be said to have objective value, then an objective morality could be built on it. It would be a long arduous case, and would require more time than I care to invest; but still a case could be made that if pleasure has objective value, then more overall pleasure in the world is objectively better than less. If you want to knock the idea around with me, try to poke holes in places you see it leading to problems, I'd be happy to mull it over with you though.

Whenever I mention it, the first thing people jump straight on is to say that we should all just overdose on a massive pile of heroine. But I think it's obvious that one night of extreme pleasure, followed by death, doesn't compare to the amount of pleasure one would experience from a long healthy life of psychological contentedness. And if that holds up, then that's a huge step towards making objective statements about what leads to psychological contentedness. A clinical term, by the way, which can be measured somewhat objectively.

 

[stevevw]

False. I’ve met people who’ve told me that it’s intuitively obvious that the earth is flat.

Regardless, like I said, intuition doesn’t lead to objective truth, since intuition can be wrong.

Also, you didn’t answer my question. Why is it objectively wrong to hurt children?

I thought I answered that maybe it was someone else. The unjustified hurting of children causes them unnecessary physical pain, anguish, and can lead to further complications such as emotional and psychological problems. It depends on what the hurt is as to what the resulting complications may be. This is more of an argument based on human flourishing.

But ultimately the unjustified hurting of children is wrong as it is against God's laws. God's laws are the ultimate measure of what is right and wrong. You can find moral values in those laws that will relate to certain situations. Jesus was clear about how children were not to be hurt.

 

[stevevw]

That's right. And it's the person who holds the morality. Thus explaining why it's all subjective, not objective.

No that only explains how the person (subject) can formulate views and that could be for many reasons which influence their views. But despite all that most people react the same which contradicts their subjective position and points to there being some inner recognition, maybe their conscience which recognizes certain things are always right or wrong.

Why should I when you have already agreed to it? In post 1260, you said, "...our perception of our experiences is subjective..." If you agree that our perception of our experiences is subjective, then that's all that's needed to show that you and I both agree that our perception of the world and what happens is subjective and not objective.

So our moral experience indicates that some things are objectively wrong.

But since you said in post 1260 that our perception of our experiences is subjective, then you are indeed claiming that the subjective perception of our experiences is leading to an objective morality.

The input is our perception of our experiences. You said in post 1260 that it's subjective. Thus all the input is subjective, since it is based on our perception of what we experience. It can't be an objective reaction, because we are reacting to our subjective experience of it. So all the input we get about the world is subjective. The fact that we can't really control it doesn't make it objective.

OK, my mistake on that one because as far as I understand when we react to a situation that is an action and an action can be observed. There is no time to think about subjective views on experience because people just react. That reaction is usually a true indication of what is happening and what people believe.

My point is despite the claim to subjective morality all people consistently react a certain way about what is right and wrong and it isn't the result of socialization or evolution. So yes human moral experience indicates that some things are objectively wrong. How we experience something rather than see something.

I do not have an ultimate measure. I go with how I think I'd react in that situation. I know that other people may have different views on certain moral issues. That's why it's all subjective.

Yes I agree but the key here is when you said: "I go with what I think when giving my views about what is right and wrong".

I am saying that despite people's thoughts and views about morality when they are actually in a situation that involves those morals they react like they are objective despite their previous subjective thoughts and often contradict themselves. The reaction a person gives is usually the true indication of what they believe about that moral and not the subjective thinking they had.

Of, for crying out loud... How many times do I have to spell it out for you? I'm not appealing to objective morality at all.

Sorry my bad grammar again. When I said how do you appeal to objective morals to figure out what is good and bad I meant how do you determine what is morally good and bad without objective morality. I realize you have previously said this is done by using your own reasoning. But we keep coming back to this same point where I have to keep pointing out that it is a useless exercise to use personal opinion to determine what is ultimately right and wrong so why even do it.

For example in your previous post before this when I said the same thing you said but most people using subjective morality will agree it is wrong to give some weight to subjective morality. But this is still useless as it doesn't matter how many people you have because no one can ever determine what is ultimately good or bad. The group could be right or completely wrong but they can never tell anyway.

So we will keep dancing around the issue until it is acknowledged that under subjective morality there is no ultimate right and wrong. Trying to claim that reasoning and convincing others about what is right and wrong, trying to claim moral ground on anything is useless and an illusion.

And that's because both are subjective!

So under subjective morality there is no determination about ultimate moral right and wrong but rather just people with different moral likes and dislikes.

Okay, then someone else made it up.

No moral arguments are proper arguments that have all the criteria that any argument would have based on logic. They are not made up as personal opinions cannot be argued logically.

You're still saying that it's objectively wrong except in the cases where it isn't. And that seems just like subjective to me.

Am I really. If you think about it how does killing in self-defence make it OK to kill? People think that just because a person has killed in self-defence that this then makes it OK to kill in that situation. No, it doesn't, it just makes it less bad than killing for no justified reason. The person killing in self-defence has not done a good act. They have done a bad act to prevent something worse happening.

There is a hierarchy of morals under objective morality and therefore varying degrees of badness. The objective moral not to kill doesn't make every act of killing like a 1st-degree act. Even the courts recognize this. The act is still objectively bad but not as bad as someone killing for no good reason.

 

[stevevw]

I never said it was okay.

Do not misrepresent my position like that again. If you suggest that I think child abuse is acceptable I will report your post.

Just spotted this post and thought I better respond as I was concerned. I didn't intend to even imply that you think child abuse is OK. I doubled checked what was said and I think you will find that this was not at you but in general once again.

You are forgetting the context of the debate. I said that most people would react if their child was abused despite claiming that child abuse was OK in some situations. You said that some parents think it was OK. I said that doesn't make it objectively OK. Not OK with you but ultimately OK. That a claim about a subjective moral does not hold any weight objectively.

When you trace the conversation back to the post before that you will see that I am not saying you or anyone is saying it is OK to abuse children. I am saying that no one thinks it's OK because they react like it is not OK despite their claims that it is OK. At no point have I said that you think it is OK.

How in the world do you figure this?
If someone says that their morality is objective, the fact that morality is really subjective does not mean that the person in question is suddenly going to start doing the opposite of what they claim their morality is.
Seriously, how you reached that conclusion is a mystery to me.

You have misunderstood what I said and got it the wrong way around. I said if someone says their morality is subjective and claims for example that "taking people's possessions to give to share with others is good". When someone takes their possessions to share with others they will react like it is wrong. So their reaction speaks more about what they truly believe than what they claimed. When just about everyone does this you begin to see a pattern that most people have this internal knowledge that certain things are always right or wrong despite what they say with their subjective morals.

I do not think that the idea that child abuse is acceptable in any way is equally deserving respect as my opinion that child abuse is reprehensible. Because child abuse does demonstrable harm to people.

Why is that ultimately so important. Why is it so important that children and humans not be harmed if we are just biologically socially programmed organisms that have devised right and wrong as an evolutionary construct to survive. Why humans and not rats. Why are humans so important if there is no God and we are no more valuable than rocks if everything just disappears into nothingness.

There are many reasons. As I said before, some moral views might lead to a person causing demonstrable harm to people. Also, we are social creatures and we live in a social setting. We have to have an agreed upon system of morality to help keep that society working. Hence we have laws against murder and child abuse, etc. But that does NOT mean that the moral opinions used to form those laws are objective. Remember - lots of people can agree on something without that thing being an objective fact.

But according to evolution environments change so what is determined as right and wrong can change if the environment changes. If we end up with little food and too many people then the morals would change where only those who got the food would survive. This all says nothing about what we determine as right and wrong being any more value than some chemical outcome to survive.

Anyway, I think I better leave it at that as I don't want to get into any trouble.

No worries I was going to say the same as I didn't want to risk saying the wrong thing accidentally again and offending you. It has been great debating with you as it is very thought-provoking.

 

[stevevw]

Because I provided a scenario where it could be considered the better option

So are you saying that this better scenario makes it good to sexually abuse a child. There is a hierarchy to objective morals where there are some greater and lesser objectively bad things to do. For example, hiding jews and lying to the Nazi's protect them is not as bad as giving them up to the Nazi's to get executed. Both are objectively bad but killing Jews is a greater objective wrong than lying. Nothing has changed it is still objectively wrong to kill and lie.

Just because everybody agrees to something does not make it objective. As was pointed out before, everyone used to believe the Earth was flat! Was that objective? No.

We are talking about something within people and a part of people. Not something based on myth or religious belief as was the case in very early times as in Mesopotamian or Egyptian ideology. Apart from that everyone has supported a spherical earth.
The earliest documentation of a spherical Earth comes from the Ancient Greeks (5th century BC).[4][5] Since the 600s AD,[6] scholars have supported that view, and by the Early Middle Ages (700-1500 AD), virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint.
Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

I am saying it is wrong to abuse a child based on subjectively; not objectivity.
You need to understand; subjective moral values mean just as much to me as objective moral values mean to you. Until you can understand that, you won't understand subjective morality

I do understand that. That for you, your personal view of things abusing a child is wrong. Similar to you liking a particular taste of food. But as you don't have a reference point outside yourself to check if what you believe is really correct you can never tell if it is objectively right. You cannot tell a crooked line is crooked unless there is a straight line to compare with.

So under objective morality, the moral is not my subjective view but a reference point outside myself that can be used to measure if that moral is ultimately correct. That reference point is God's moral laws. So without God, there is no objective right and wrong.

Again; just because you, I, and everybody else agree on something does not make it objective.

As I said, it is more than just subjectively agreeing that say child abuse is wrong as some people go against their own subjective views to agree with it being wrong which points to something inside them taking over and going against them. Going against the subject, taking over the subject, and making the subject conform to a view they initially disagreed with.

That points to some influence that comes from beyond the subject which is dictating what is really inside them. Like a natural law similar to the laws of physics is at work in their heart or conscience. The Bible points this out in Romans 2:14 and 15
14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

 

[Ken-1122]

So are you saying that this better scenario makes it good to sexually abuse a child. There is a hierarchy to objective morals where there are some greater and lesser objectively bad things to do. For example, hiding jews and lying to the Nazi's protect them is not as bad as giving them up to the Nazi's to get executed. Both are objectively bad but killing Jews is a greater objective wrong than lying. Nothing has changed it is still objectively wrong to kill and lie.

You keep making the mistake of assuming I am expressing my personal moral views; I am not! I am pointing out that any reasonable person could have those views, or disagree with them. If morality were objective, all reasonable people would agree on all moral issues. If morality were objective, there would be no need for lawyers, judges, or juries because we would only need law enforcement officers enforcing what is morally right. The fact that every society has always had Lawyers and judges is because morality is subjective and cannot be enforced thus laws are need in place of morality.

We are talking about something within people and a part of people. Not something based on myth or religious belief as was the case in very early times as in Mesopotamian or Egyptian ideology. Apart from that everyone has supported a spherical earth.
The earliest documentation of a spherical Earth comes from the Ancient Greeks (5th century BC).[4][5] Since the 600s AD,[6] scholars have supported that view, and by the Early Middle Ages (700-1500 AD), virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint.
Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

The history of flat earth belief is irrelevant. My point is people have believed all kinds of stuff for years, only to be proven wrong later. You can’t always judge objective realities on popular belief. Popularity is NOT an indicator of truth. Your argument fails.

I do understand that. That for you, your personal view of things abusing a child is wrong. Similar to you liking a particular taste of food. But as you don't have a reference point outside yourself to check if what you believe is really correct you can never tell if it is objectively right. You cannot tell a crooked line is crooked unless there is a straight line to compare with.

So under objective morality, the moral is not my subjective view but a reference point outside myself that can be used to measure if that moral is ultimately correct. That reference point is God's moral laws. So without God, there is no objective right and wrong.

You have the typical theistic belief that humans are incapable of understanding right from wrong so we have to go to something else (your God of choice) that is (supposedly) superior to humans for moral guidance. But how do you know this something else/God is morally good? You don’t. You have faith that God is good, but the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth! If you are unable to establish the truth concerning your God of choice, you have no right to proclaim him good.
When you look at the history of people claiming to follow God’s laws, it has resulted in some of the most atrocious immoral acts in history. Even today when you look at the countries with secular laws and compare them to countries that claim to follow God’s laws (usually Sharia law) those following the laws of their God of choice are backwards, inhumane, and cruel in comparison. Even the Nazi’s claimed they were doing God’s work while slaughtering people; Hitler wrote in his book Mein Kampf; that he was doing God’s work by protecting from the Jews. There is a reason the most civil of societies are run by secular laws.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I thought I answered that maybe it was someone else. The unjustified hurting of children causes them unnecessary physical pain, anguish, and can lead to further complications such as emotional and psychological problems. It depends on what the hurt is as to what the resulting complications may be. This is more of an argument based on human flourishing.

Why is harming human flourishing objectively wrong?

But ultimately the unjustified hurting of children is wrong as it is against God's laws. God's laws are the ultimate measure of what is right and wrong. You can find moral values in those laws that will relate to certain situations. Jesus was clear about how children were not to be hurt.

Why is it objectively wrong to do something that you believe the god of the Bible doesn’t want you to do?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why is harming human flourishing objectively wrong?



Why is it objectively wrong to do something that you believe the god of the Bible doesn’t want you to do?

This is getting down to the is/ought problem, which invoking the god of the Bible does nothing to resolve.

@stevevw - even if we were to grant that the god of the Bible exists, and that he has a certain moral nature, and that you can reliably glean the moral laws that derive from that nature, there is still no reason why anyone should necessarily follow those laws. You cannot point to any 'is' statement of moral behavior, attributed to Yahweh in Bible, and derive an 'ought' from it. Though you are welcome to try, and fail, if you wish.

 

[Kylie]

No that only explains how the person (subject) can formulate views and that could be for many reasons which influence their views. But despite all that most people react the same which contradicts their subjective position and points to there being some inner recognition, maybe their conscience which recognizes certain things are always right or wrong.

All you've got is a MAYBE? And you also acknowledge that your "maybe" can be influenced for many reasons?

That's an incredibly weak argument you have there.

OK, my mistake on that one because as far as I understand when we react to a situation that is an action and an action can be observed. There is no time to think about subjective views on experience because people just react. That reaction is usually a true indication of what is happening and what people believe.

My point is despite the claim to subjective morality all people consistently react a certain way about what is right and wrong and it isn't the result of socialization or evolution. So yes human moral experience indicates that some things are objectively wrong. How we experience something rather than see something.

And again I will say that just because most (or even all) people hold a particular view, it does not make it objective.

Yes I agree but the key here is when you said: "I go with what I think when giving my views about what is right and wrong".

I am saying that despite people's thoughts and views about morality when they are actually in a situation that involves those morals they react like they are objective despite their previous subjective thoughts and often contradict themselves. The reaction a person gives is usually the true indication of what they believe about that moral and not the subjective thinking they had.

And yet there are plenty of people who would react very differently in the same situation.

If they saw a person mugging an old lady, there are some people who would punch the mugger, some who would attempt to restrain the mugger, some who would run away and some who would check the old lady afterwards to see if the mugger missed anything. If there really was an objective morality that people obeyed instinctively, then this would not happen.

Sorry my bad grammar again. When I said how do you appeal to objective morals to figure out what is good and bad I meant how do you determine what is morally good and bad without objective morality. I realize you have previously said this is done by using your own reasoning. But we keep coming back to this same point where I have to keep pointing out that it is a useless exercise to use personal opinion to determine what is ultimately right and wrong so why even do it.

For example in your previous post before this when I said the same thing you said but most people using subjective morality will agree it is wrong to give some weight to subjective morality. But this is still useless as it doesn't matter how many people you have because no one can ever determine what is ultimately good or bad. The group could be right or completely wrong but they can never tell anyway.

So we will keep dancing around the issue until it is acknowledged that under subjective morality there is no ultimate right and wrong. Trying to claim that reasoning and convincing others about what is right and wrong, trying to claim moral ground on anything is useless and an illusion.

And you need to realise that there is no such thing as "ultimately good or bad."

Because it's all subjective!

Honestly, I don't think you understand what those terms actually mean.

So under subjective morality there is no determination about ultimate moral right and wrong but rather just people with different moral likes and dislikes.

Yes.

No moral arguments are proper arguments that have all the criteria that any argument would have based on logic. They are not made up as personal opinions cannot be argued logically.

Rubbish.

I can argue personal opinions with logic support. I can explain why I think Star Trek is better than Star Wars and I can present evidence to support my position.

I just can't argue it to an unavoidable conclusion the way I can argue a point about mathematics.

Am I really. If you think about it how does killing in self-defence make it OK to kill? People think that just because a person has killed in self-defence that this then makes it OK to kill in that situation. No, it doesn't, it just makes it less bad than killing for no justified reason. The person killing in self-defence has not done a good act. They have done a bad act to prevent something worse happening.

But there are so many variables that if we try to make one standard rule and then add in all the exceptions, then it very quickly becomes so unwieldy as to be useless.

There is a hierarchy of morals under objective morality and therefore varying degrees of badness. The objective moral not to kill doesn't make every act of killing like a 1st-degree act. Even the courts recognize this. The act is still objectively bad but not as bad as someone killing for no good reason.

How can you have varying degrees of right or wrong in something that is objective?

Does mathematics have varying degrees of correct answers?

 

[Kylie]

Just spotted this post and thought I better respond as I was concerned. I didn't intend to even imply that you think child abuse is OK. I doubled checked what was said and I think you will find that this was not at you but in general once again.

You are forgetting the context of the debate. I said that most people would react if their child was abused despite claiming that child abuse was OK in some situations. You said that some parents think it was OK. I said that doesn't make it objectively OK. Not OK with you but ultimately OK. That a claim about a subjective moral does not hold any weight objectively.

When you trace the conversation back to the post before that you will see that I am not saying you or anyone is saying it is OK to abuse children. I am saying that no one thinks it's OK because they react like it is not OK despite their claims that it is OK. At no point have I said that you think it is OK.

Okay, but the fact remains that there are some people who are perfectly fine with their kids being abused - which would not happen if morality was objective.

You have misunderstood what I said and got it the wrong way around. I said if someone says their morality is subjective and claims for example that "taking people's possessions to give to share with others is good". When someone takes their possessions to share with others they will react like it is wrong. So their reaction speaks more about what they truly believe than what they claimed. When just about everyone does this you begin to see a pattern that most people have this internal knowledge that certain things are always right or wrong despite what they say with their subjective morals.

I do not see why subjective morality means that people must be okay with others stealing their things.

Why is that ultimately so important. Why is it so important that children and humans not be harmed if we are just biologically socially programmed organisms that have devised right and wrong as an evolutionary construct to survive. Why humans and not rats. Why are humans so important if there is no God and we are no more valuable than rocks if everything just disappears into nothingness.

We are dealing with morality, not the importance of Humans. Nevertheless, why do you think we can't make our own importance?

But according to evolution environments change so what is determined as right and wrong can change if the environment changes. If we end up with little food and too many people then the morals would change where only those who got the food would survive. This all says nothing about what we determine as right and wrong being any more value than some chemical outcome to survive.

And there are plenty of people who, in times of hardship, take what they need, even if it means depriving others.

Honestly, this is exactly what we'd expect with subjective morality.

No worries I was going to say the same as I didn't want to risk saying the wrong thing accidentally again and offending you. It has been great debating with you as it is very thought-provoking.

Um, I never actually said what you are responding to. And I can't find anyone else who said it either.

 

[stevevw]

You keep making the mistake of assuming I am expressing my personal moral views; I am not! I am pointing out that any reasonable person could have those views, or disagree with them.

Wait a minute I thought subjective morality was about your own views only. This is sounding like objective morality.

If morality were objective, all reasonable people would agree on all moral issues.

Any reasonable person would agree that for example sexually abusing a child is wrong. If they don't they are objectively morally wrong and either is not reasonable or are not in their right mind. Otherwise, can you show me a situation where sexually abusing a child is a morally good act?

If morality were objective, there would be no need for lawyers, judges, or juries because we would only need law enforcement officers enforcing what is morally right.

The secular system for one doesn't believe in God so they would never allow an objective moral system. That's because if there are objective morals then there has to be some transcendent moral lawmaker that most people would call God.

The fact that every society has always had Lawyers and judges is because morality is subjective and cannot be enforced thus laws are need in place of morality.

The ironic thing is that the law is a sort of objective system. The core of the law is based on Christian values and God's law like don't kill or steal. There is no allowance for subjective views so if someone claimed that stealing was OK their views will be rejected and they will be arrested. That is an objective position as they are imposing one view that stealing is always wrong on everyone.

Solicitors don't argue that a person's subjective view should be allowed and that they couldn't help it as that was their view. They only argue to either get the person off the charge or for a more lenient penalty. But the law still stands that objectively stealing is wrong.

The history of flat earth belief is irrelevant. My point is people have believed all kinds of stuff for years, only to be proven wrong later. You can’t always judge objective realities on popular belief. Popularity is NOT an indicator of truth. Your argument fails.

But we are not judging objective morality on popular beliefs only. We are using people's reactions to situations which is a physical act that is observable as opposed to beliefs or person views which are subjective.

You have the typical theistic belief that humans are incapable of understanding right from wrong so we have to go to something else (your God of choice) that is (supposedly) superior to humans for moral guidance. But how do you know this something else/God is morally good? You don’t.

The argument for showing that objective morals exist doesn't have to show which God it is but only that there is some transcendent being beyond humans that is good by nature where all objective morals come from. A logical argument can be made for this.

You have faith that God is good, but the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth! If you are unable to establish the truth concerning your God of choice, you have no right to proclaim him good.

Once again a logical argument can be made that there needs to be a transcendent being who is all good by nature and personal to be the source of objective morality.

When you look at the history of people claiming to follow God’s laws, it has resulted in some of the most atrocious immoral acts in history. Even today when you look at the countries with secular laws and compare them to countries that claim to follow God’s laws (usually Sharia law) those following the laws of their God of choice are backwards, inhumane, and cruel in comparison. Even the Nazi’s claimed they were doing God’s work while slaughtering people; Hitler wrote in his book Mein Kampf; that he was doing God’s work by protecting from the Jews. There is a reason the most civil of societies are run by secular laws.

Actually I dispute that Hitler was doing God's work and it was more about an evolutionary belief about the survival of the fittest in eliminating what he said was a weaker human in the Jews, blacks, and homosexuals to create a superior race of Arians. It seems contradictory that Hitler was doing God's work in killing the Jews when it was clearly known that the Jews were God's chosen people. So that claim is either wrong or Hitler was delusional which shows that he wasn't truly following God's laws.

But you are right in that religious people can be evil. But how do we know that they are not actually following God's laws but injecting their own subjective ideas into it and twisting God's laws? Going back to the fact that any god or transient being has to be all good by nature and cannot have any sin or evil in them I would say it was more of a case that humans twisted objective morality from God.

 

[stevevw]

Why is harming human flourishing objectively wrong?

I don't think you can make a case for why harming human flourishing is wrong. I was only using it as an example of a secular case for objective morality. Sam Harris uses this method but you could say that there are subjective views about what is human flourishing. A person who steals or is selfish and takes all they need to get their fill and be satisfied could be classed as fulfilling human flourishing.

Why is it objectively wrong to do something that you believe the god of the Bible doesn’t want you to do?

A logical argument can be made for this. Because if there are objective morals then there is a moral lawgiver and with this will come obligations and duties to do the right thing. This will also bring ultimate consequences for not doing the right thing.

God is good by nature so his nature contains objective morals like fairness, love, kindness, justice, etc. So God's moral laws give us a reference point to measure what is right and wrong. Therefore clearly showing when we do wrong so there is no excuse. Under subjective morality, because there is no God and thus no objective morality this leads to the conclusion that there is no ultimate measure for right and wrong and ultimate consequences for doing evil.

Therefore at the end of the day people can be selfish and do wrong to benefit themselves and know that they and everything else will disappear into nothing without any comebacks. Why should someone not benefit from the money and priveledges if it gives them a happy and comfortable life and forgets about the poor people at the bottom of the hill? Yet people act like there are objective morals so therefore this implies that there must be a moral lawgiver and ultimate consequences for their wrong actions.

 

[stevevw]

Okay, but the fact remains that there are some people who are perfectly fine with their kids being abused - which would not happen if morality was objective.

Why wouldn't it happen if there were objective morality. Under objective morality, there is good and bad. If there is evil in the world there has to be good because evil is just a departure from a standard of good. So this opens the possibility that people can be objectively wrong and therefore deny objective morality. It is also possible that some people are not in their right minds and therefore could thing all sorts of crazy things.

I do not see why subjective morality means that people must be okay with others stealing their things.

That's because the person stealing their things has not done anything objectively wrong. You may think it is wrong but under subjective morality, they think it is totally OK and you have no right to tell them they are wrong. If you do you are imposing your morals on them and that is taking an objective position. In fact under a subjective system when society imposes one law about stealing on everyone they are taking an objective position.

We are dealing with morality, not the importance of Humans. Nevertheless, why do you think we can't make our own importance?

Why is it wrong to kill. Because human life is sacred or precious so therefore killing it is objectively wrong. But under subjective morality, there is no grounding of right and wrong so morals just stem from some biological process based on chemicals which is formulated based on survival instincts at the end of the day. Any idea of moral right and wrong are illusions because there is no ultimate right and wrong in the moral sense.

So why even make a case for human life being precious or sacred. It is no more sacred then a lion taking down a deer for dinner. Under evolution, environments change so what we have now is just the result of the environment and not morals. If the environment changes and there is a situation where there is not enough food and too many people then stealing food will become OK as an evolutionary progression.

And there are plenty of people who, in times of hardship, take what they need, even if it means depriving others.

Yes, but the question is whether this is ultimately good or bad morally. As mentioned there may be some/plenty of people taking what they need in times of hardship and justifying that it is OK but if they had someone taking stuff from them they would protest it was wrong. I don't know of many people who think that it is good for someone to take their hard earnt stuff like their car or smartphone etc. They usually say it is wrong and call the police.

Honestly, this is exactly what we'd expect with subjective morality.

I agree but people don't react that way and contradict their own subjective position. This points to there being some inner knowledge that certain things are always wrong despite subjective morality. I think we are now repeating the same arguments and therefore cannot go much further.

 

[Ken-1122]

Wait a minute I thought subjective morality was about your own views only. This is sounding like objective morality.

I said reasonable people could agree or disagree with that moral view. How do you call that objective?

Any reasonable person would agree that for example sexually abusing a child is wrong. If they don't they are objectively morally wrong and either is not reasonable or are not in their right mind. Otherwise, can you show me a situation where sexually abusing a child is a morally good act?

I said ALL moral issues; not just that “cherry picked” issue you keep bringing up

The secular system for one doesn't believe in God so they would never allow an objective moral system. That's because if there are objective morals then there has to be some transcendent moral lawmaker that most people would call God.

Most people who believe in God enact secular laws because they know the details of God's laws cannot be agreed upon; but God or no God; if morality were objective, there would be no need for lawyers, or judges, we would only have the police enforce morality. My point stands.

The argument for showing that objective morals exist doesn't have to show which God it is but only that there is some transcendent being beyond humans that is good by nature where all objective morals come from. A logical argument can be made for this.

Then show that there is some transcendent being beyond humans that is good by nature where all objective morals come from. If you can’t do this, your argument fails.

 

[Kylie]

Why wouldn't it happen if there were objective morality. Under objective morality, there is good and bad. If there is evil in the world there has to be good because evil is just a departure from a standard of good. So this opens the possibility that people can be objectively wrong and therefore deny objective morality. It is also possible that some people are not in their right minds and therefore could thing all sorts of crazy things.

If there was objective morality, those people would understand that abusing kids is wrong.

That's because the person stealing their things has not done anything objectively wrong. You may think it is wrong but under subjective morality, they think it is totally OK and you have no right to tell them they are wrong. If you do you are imposing your morals on them and that is taking an objective position. In fact under a subjective system when society imposes one law about stealing on everyone they are taking an objective position.

I'm sorry, do you think that nobody is hurt by subjective things?

Why is it wrong to kill. Because human life is sacred or precious so therefore killing it is objectively wrong.

No, you're just assuming that morality is objective and concluding that it is always wrong to kill. You conclusions are based on unsupported assumptions.

But under subjective morality, there is no grounding of right and wrong so morals just stem from some biological process based on chemicals which is formulated based on survival instincts at the end of the day. Any idea of moral right and wrong are illusions because there is no ultimate right and wrong in the moral sense.

So why even make a case for human life being precious or sacred. It is no more sacred then a lion taking down a deer for dinner. Under evolution, environments change so what we have now is just the result of the environment and not morals. If the environment changes and there is a situation where there is not enough food and too many people then stealing food will become OK as an evolutionary progression.

It's important because we have empathy and we care for each other, for the most part. That's what being a social species is about.

Yes, but the question is whether this is ultimately good or bad morally. As mentioned there may be some/plenty of people taking what they need in times of hardship and justifying that it is OK but if they had someone taking stuff from them they would protest it was wrong. I don't know of many people who think that it is good for someone to take their hard earnt stuff like their car or smartphone etc. They usually say it is wrong and call the police.

There is no ultimate when it comes to morality.

I agree but people don't react that way and contradict their own subjective position. This points to there being some inner knowledge that certain things are always wrong despite subjective morality. I think we are now repeating the same arguments and therefore cannot go much further.

Rubbish, people contradict themselves all the time. People say it is wrong to take money from others, but if someone orders a pizza and pays with a $20 and the delivery guy accidently gives a $50 as change, a lot of people would consider themselves lucky and keep it, despite the fact that the money is going to come out of the delivery guy's pocket.

 

[stevevw]

This is getting down to the is/ought problem, which invoking the god of the Bible does nothing to resolve.

@stevevw - even if we were to grant that the god of the Bible exists, and that he has a certain moral nature, and that you can reliably glean the moral laws that derive from that nature, there is still no reason why anyone should necessarily follow those laws. You cannot point to any 'is' statement of moral behavior, attributed to Yahweh in Bible, and derive an 'ought' from it. Though you are welcome to try, and fail, if you wish.

OK I will answer this question with an article from a well-known philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig as though I can understand this argument I find it hard to do justice in putting it into my own words due to my grammar. Briefly from what I understand basically we can derive an ought from an is with objective morals through divine command theory.

But the reason we can use this is not just because God says so. It is based on God's nature being all good and that He is justified to be a moral lawgiver. We are then duty-bound to God who is a competent and worthy lawgiver just as we are to someone who has lawful authority on earth. Therefore we ought to morally good because it is commanded by God. That is deriving an “ought” from an “is.”

The moral argument as such makes no attempt to explain morality’s grounding in God. It makes only two assertions:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

The two premises imply God’s existence but do not entail a theory of how moral values and duties relate to God. So, the theist who defends this argument has a range of options open to him.

The theory that I have defended is a form of Divine Command Theory. According to this view, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of an essentially just and loving God. It seems to me that this theory does derive an “ought” from an “is,” and justifiably so—though not in the way you imagine. The theory does, as you say, ground moral values in God's unchanging nature. God is the paradigm of goodness. But that is not to say that “because God is a certain way we ought to behave in certain ways.” No, our moral obligations and prohibitions arise as a result of God’s commands to us. God’s nature serves to establish values—goodness and badness—while God’s commands establish moral duties—what we ought or ought not to do. Grounding moral values in God no more derives an “ought” from an “is” than does Plato’s grounding values in the form of the Good (indeed, one of my critiques of moral platonism is precisely its failure to provide any basis for moral duty). The theist and Plato just have a different ontological ultimate.

So how does Divine Command Theory derive an “ought” from an “is”? Well, it says that we ought to do something because it is commanded by God. That is deriving an “ought” from an “is.” Someone might demand, “Why are we obligated to do something just because it is commanded by God?” The answer to that question comes, I think, by reflecting on the nature of moral duty. The duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority. For example, if some random person were to tell me to pull my car over, I would have absolutely no legal obligation to do so. But if a policeman were to issue such a command, I’d have a legal obligation to obey. The difference in the two cases lies in the persons who issued the commands: one is qualified to do so, while the other is not.

Now, similarly, in the case of moral obligations, these arise as a result of imperatives issued by a competent authority. And in virtue of being the Good, God is uniquely qualified to issues such commands as expressions of His nature. What is deficient in Plato’s theory is a person who can issue moral imperatives as an expression of the Good, but that want is supplied by theism. So it seems to me that Divine Command Theory’s derivation of an “ought” from an “is,” far from being objectionable, captures a central feature of moral duty and plausibly grounds it.
Does Theistic Ethics Derive an “Ought” from an “Is”? | Reasonable Faith

 

[stevevw]

If there was objective morality, those people would understand that abusing kids is wrong.

Yes, they may understand that but that doesn't mean they will always do what is right. They may come up with rationalizations and morally wrong justifications as to why it is OK to abuse kids. People that do wrong will usually not admit they are wrong but come up with some excuse that allows them to deny the objective truth.

I'm sorry, do you think that nobody is hurt by subjective things?

But why is being hurt a measure for what is right and wrong. Under subjective thinking what is determined as hurt may also be a subjective notion? The person who thinks that it is OK to take other people's stuff isn't going to worry about hurting people because he thinks that it is OK to take stuff and anyone complaining of being hurt is being unreal and selfish. Under an atheist view, subjective morality has no objective morality, and as Dawkins says "there is no evil or good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference".

No, you're just assuming that morality is objective and concluding that it is always wrong to kill. You conclusions are based on unsupported assumptions.

That's not the point. You were making the claim that the preservation of human life was why we should treat subjective morality as a justification for not killing humans. I asked why is human life so important that it can be used to justify subjective morals when humans are just like animals who kill by instinct. Our reasoning is just a biological process for survival and has nothing to do with ultimate morality.

It is my argument that subjective morality means so little ultimately regarding what is morally good and bad and yet we act like there are ultimate good and evil that this points to objective morality. So it is not just an assumption but observed experience.

It's important because we have empathy and we care for each other, for the most part. That's what being a social species is about.

But where do empathy and care come from, why are they ultimately valuable as morals. What value do they have if there is no ultimate right and wrong? No reference point that gives these qualities their value. As C. S. Lewis said when he complained about an unjust universe. If there was injustice then there had to be justice to compare with. You cannot know a crooked line without there being a straight line. That reference point has to come from beyond human opinion. If there is no reference point then qualities like care and empathy have no value and appealing to them is a useless exercise.

There is no ultimate when it comes to morality.

As with the above logic from Lewis, there has to be. Otherwise, there is no measure of good and bad. The fact that people keep appealing to objective morals when they speak about evil in the world, justice, and kindness when they ultimately mean nothing under subjective morality shows they know there are objective moral values.

Rubbish, people contradict themselves all the time. People say it is wrong to take money from others, but if someone orders a pizza and pays with a $20 and the delivery guy accidentally gives a $50 as change, a lot of people would consider themselves lucky and keep it, despite the fact that the money is going to come out of the delivery guy's pocket.

That's doesn't disprove objective morality. That just shows that there are no ultimate moral obligations under subjective morality. That a person can go against their conscience if it profits them. That supports what I was saying in that subjective morality has no ultimate right and wrong or moral obligations.

But you are reversing the point I was making so it is not the same. The point is if someone did that to the person who stole that extra change from the Pizza delivery guy to them they would be jumping up and down that it was wrong which shows they have right and wrong in them.

 

[Speedwell]

OK I will answer this question with an article from a well-known philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig as though I can understand this argument I find it hard to do justice in putting it into my own words due to my grammar. Briefly from what I understand basically we can derive an ought from an is with objective morals through divine command theory.

But the reason we can use this is not just because God says so. It is based on God's nature being all good and that He is justified to be a moral lawgiver. We are then duty-bound to God who is a competent and worthy lawgiver just as we are to someone who has lawful authority on earth. Therefore we ought to morally good because it is commanded by God. That is deriving an “ought” from an “is.”

The moral argument as such makes no attempt to explain morality’s grounding in God. It makes only two assertions:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

The two premises imply God’s existence but do not entail a theory of how moral values and duties relate to God. So, the theist who defends this argument has a range of options open to him.

The theory that I have defended is a form of Divine Command Theory. According to this view, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of an essentially just and loving God. It seems to me that this theory does derive an “ought” from an “is,” and justifiably so—though not in the way you imagine. The theory does, as you say, ground moral values in God's unchanging nature. God is the paradigm of goodness. But that is not to say that “because God is a certain way we ought to behave in certain ways.” No, our moral obligations and prohibitions arise as a result of God’s commands to us. God’s nature serves to establish values—goodness and badness—while God’s commands establish moral duties—what we ought or ought not to do. Grounding moral values in God no more derives an “ought” from an “is” than does Plato’s grounding values in the form of the Good (indeed, one of my critiques of moral platonism is precisely its failure to provide any basis for moral duty). The theist and Plato just have a different ontological ultimate.

So how does Divine Command Theory derive an “ought” from an “is”? Well, it says that we ought to do something because it is commanded by God. That is deriving an “ought” from an “is.” Someone might demand, “Why are we obligated to do something just because it is commanded by God?” The answer to that question comes, I think, by reflecting on the nature of moral duty. The duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority. For example, if some random person were to tell me to pull my car over, I would have absolutely no legal obligation to do so. But if a policeman were to issue such a command, I’d have a legal obligation to obey. The difference in the two cases lies in the persons who issued the commands: one is qualified to do so, while the other is not.

Now, similarly, in the case of moral obligations, these arise as a result of imperatives issued by a competent authority. And in virtue of being the Good, God is uniquely qualified to issues such commands as expressions of His nature. What is deficient in Plato’s theory is a person who can issue moral imperatives as an expression of the Good, but that want is supplied by theism. So it seems to me that Divine Command Theory’s derivation of an “ought” from an “is,” far from being objectionable, captures a central feature of moral duty and plausibly grounds it.
Does Theistic Ethics Derive an “Ought” from an “Is”? | Reasonable Faith

That's all very well, but there is no objective method of knowing what God's commands are.