Where does morality come from?

[Ken-1122]

Yes, so the person shows a picture or model of the earth as a globe. But the person can be confident in making the claim because they have seen the support. They are not just making some claim off the top of their head or because they feel or like the idea.

Again; it’s not about seeing support or liking the idea, it has to be demonstratable/verifiable

But sometimes you can say that something is objective like Einstein's theory of Relativity. But you can never demonstrate that yourself as to its a complex mathematical equation and you cannot show someone how this is worked out. But you know it is objective.

Mathematical equations are demonstratable/verifiable

No its independent of humans. So a person's personal opinion is dependent on humans so its subjective.

Independent of humans is not a part of the definition of objective. It has nothing to do with it.

So what measure does the person use to say that the other person's moral position is wrong?

They have their own personal measure; whether it be the Golden rule, 10 commandments, their point of view, anything they value as a personal measure.

Ah because it is only an opinion and personal opinions cannot determine if something is really wrong.

Why not? And is there a difference between wrong vs really wrong?

Yes subjective and relative morality is sometimes interchanged.

Only when the terms are used out of context

They are similar yet different.

No; they are only different

There is no ultimate right or wrong for both the relativist or the subjectivist. So they cannot make any ultimate claims that something is right or wrong personal or culturally or relative to time periods.

What's the difference between ultimate right vs right, and what is the difference between an ultimate claim vs a claim?

They cannot impose their relative or subjective position on others as others will have their own cultural or personal outlook.

Again; nothing is stopping them. If morality were objective, something would stop them

I don't know where you got that from. Morality can only be expressed by people. A non-human object or material cannot have objective morality.

I got it from the definition of "objective" that which is objective is based on something without thought/non human. That's why morality which comes from humans is not objective.

I think you mean that measuring objective morality cannot be done by people so the objectivity of something is in the object or moral act itself. IE

The earth is round not because you or I say its round but because it is round in and of itself. Rape is not wrong because you or I say so. It is wrong in and of the act of rape itself.

The shape of the Earth is round due to the definition of round. The definition of rape does not include wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

See there is another objective claim. IE "We certainly do not know objective morality is there". That is a claim that you really know something is true and that I am wrong. This is what I am saying about how despite people claiming a subjective moral position they act, react, protest, and even demand they know the truth and that certain acts are always morally wrong regardless of a person's subjective moral positions.

They reject and condemn other people's subjective morality claiming there is no such thing and demand that people follow their moral values like they are the exclusive holders of what is morally right. People protest and make the case for evil in the world like it is a real thing and not someones personal view.

We cannot help it and we continually undermine the subjective moral position by appealing to objectiveness. It is something within us that we intuitively know it. That is the evidence for objective morality, our lived moral experience that we can observe and measure.

Many non-religious people support objective morality. They realize it is there but come up with non-religious explanations to account for it. So at least they are being honest. Sam Harris a popular atheist is one who supports objective morality with his Moral landscape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqM_NE4Zk2s

This is an article from Psychology Today which is not religious but taking a psychological approach to morality and they support objective morality based on the fact that we all intuitive know certain things are always wrong regardless of personal opinion.
Morality Is Objective
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/excellent-beauty/201712/morality-is-objective

Here another non-religious account of an objective morality based on a common understanding of intuition.
About intuitionism
Intuitionism teaches three main things:
· There are real objective moral truths that are independent of human beings.
· These are fundamental truths that can't be broken down into parts or defined by reference to anything except other moral truths.
· Human beings can discover these truths by using their minds in a particular, intuitive way.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Intuitionism

Yes studied at Uni IE teleological (consequentialism, utilitarianism) and deontological ethics (duty/ruled based) and all the other variations. My degree covered a lot of areas associated with humanities, psychology so morality and ethics were big parts of it.

I am quite aware that there are atheists who think there are an objective morality, that does not mean that they are correct.

I see, no relevant background.

 

[stevevw]

I am quite aware that there are atheists who think there are an objective morality, that does not mean that they are correct.

I see, no relevant background.

Actually I was responding to your claim that "objectivity pre-supposes god(s) and is, therefore, a religious concept".

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually I was responding to your claim that "objectivity pre-supposes god(s) and is, therefore, a religious concept".

Yes, that is so.

You cannot have objectivity without an objective agent, i.e. god(s).

We cannot ever se things other than from our own p.o.w.

 

[Kylie]

If they are identical situations then why did the experts say they were different and why did the audience vote like they were different. Under subjective morality, if they were the same situation then those people should have voted the same in each scenario.

No, under OBJECTIVE morality they are the same situation because five people are being saved at the cost of one person's life.

Under SUBJECTIVE morality, they are different because people see it as different for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps they don't like that body parts from the one person are being placed into the bodies of the five. Who knows? That's why it's SUBJECTIVE.

 

[the iconoclast]

When one say this action is right, or that action is wrong, those actions are being judged as right or wrong.

Hey hey my dear

Ok. Let's say I beat you up, steal your shoes and give them to someone who has no shoes.

What actions are wrong, what actions are right and who judges who?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey my dear

Ok. Let's say I beat you up, steal your shoes and give them to someone who has no shoes.

What actions are wrong, what actions are right and who judges who?

Cheers

Ken may say you are wrong because you have stolen from him. He could also say you are right because he wants to help those less fortunate and he would have gladly donated shoes to the shoeless person if he had known about him.

You may say you are right because you have taken from someone who can afford to lose a pair of shoes and given them to a person who could not afford shoes in the first place. You may also say you were wrong when you find out Ken would have happily donated his shoes without the need for you to be violent.

The shoeless person may say you are wrong because he doesn't want to benefit from your illegal action. He might also say you are right because you placed his well-being above your own.

Thus the same actions may be judged as good or bad, and hence morality is subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey hey my dear

Ok. Let's say I beat you up, steal your shoes and give them to someone who has no shoes.

What actions are wrong, what actions are right and who judges who?

Cheers

What actions are wrong?
*I would judge your actions as wrong,
*You would probably judge your actions as justified
*The person you gave the shoes to would judge your actions as good assuming he is unaware of what you did to get the shoes.

Who judges who?
Everybody involved, and all who observe will judge the actions from their perspective.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that is so.
You cannot have objectivity without an objective agent, i.e. god(s).

That doesn't stop atheists coming up with ideas about how objective morality exists besides an independent objective agent. So what are you saying about these people who come up with these ideas, are they just making up the ideas about objective morality and its really subjective.

We cannot ever see things other than from our own p.o.w.

Then why do people who claim subjective moral positions contradict themselves all the time by acknowledging that some things are always wrong. Are you saying they're got their point of view wrong?

 

[VirOptimus]

That doesn't stop atheists coming up with ideas about how objective morality exists besides an independent objective agent. So what are you saying about these people who come up with these ideas, are they just making up the ideas about objective morality and its really subjective.
Then why do people who claim subjective moral positions contradict themselves all the time by acknowledging that some things are always wrong. Are you saying they're got their point of view wrong?

I'm saying that there are no such things as objective or subjective.

What people claim is of no interest, its what can be supported and there is no evidence for objective morals. Indeed, if one studies how values has changed over time and cultures its very apperant that humans have very shifting opinions on what is right and what is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

I'm saying that there are no such things as objective or subjective.

What people claim is of no interest, its what can be supported and there is no evidence for objective morals. Indeed, if one studies how values has changed over time and cultures its very apperant that humans have very shifting opinions on what is right and what is wrong.

Shifting and changing moral values associated with time and culture is relative to morality. The time or culture dictates what is morally right or wrong. But that does not mean there are no objective morals.

If we take the moral value of respect when greeting people. One culture may bow when greeting, one may hug or put faces together and one may shake hands. Any culture that does not greet in the way they believe is right will be offended. But they all believe in respect for people when greeting them so the moral is still objective that showing respect for people is the same for all cultures.

Plus just because a culture or person may choose to hold a different moral position to the objective one doesn't mean it is a subjective or relative one. Their moral position may be immoral compared to the objectively right thing to do. In the case of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape, he puts human wellbeing as the measure for objective morality.

So just because some culture, time, or individual says it's OK to rape it can be shown through science that rape causes harm and therefore affects human wellbeing. So there is an objective measure which shows that rape is always wrong regardless of relative or subjective positions.

I agree that what people claim is of no interest and that is what I have been saying. Their actions/reactions mean more to what they really believe about morality than what they claim. And it is these reactions that can be measured and a logical argument can be made that based on our lived moral experience (our actions/reactions) we can be justified to believe there are objective moral values.

As I said peoples actions/reaction contradict their claims to subjective morality. This shows that something within them contrary to what they have rationalized or justified is at work taking them over and showing that some things are always right or wrong to do regardless of subjective moral positions. .

 

[stevevw]

No, under OBJECTIVE morality they are the same situation because five people are being saved at the cost of one person's life.

Under SUBJECTIVE morality, they are different because people see it as different for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps they don't like that body parts from the one person are being placed into the bodies of the five. Who knows? That's why it's SUBJECTIVE.

Now you're doing what you claimed was irrelevant when I was trying to add mitigating conditions to the Trolley problem. There are not a multitude of reasons for why the audience was against killing a person to take their organs. Like you said there are just 2 options kill one to save 5 or let the 5 people die. The point is 99% of the audience agreed that it was wrong and any reason given did not stand up as it could be factored out in tests.

You obviously didn't watch the videos. The experts said that in the Trolley problem the objectively right thing to do was to go down the track with 1 person and in the organ transplant the objectively right thing to do was to not kill the individual for their organs to save the 5. The experts were saying that these moral choices were not subjective choices but a "truth statement" about morality and they were not religious.

The experts are saying that the difference cannot be completely understood because there is something within people that sees things this way and it is consistent through the tests they have done. You have to watch the video to see what I am talking about but they clearly say it is not because of subjective morality.

 

[stevevw]

What actions are wrong?
*I would judge your actions as wrong,
*You would probably judge your actions as justified
*The person you gave the shoes to would judge your actions as good assuming he is unaware of what you did to get the shoes.

Who judges who?
Everybody involved, and all who observe will judge the actions from their perspective.

It makes about as much sense as a bunch of people judging which flavor of cake has the morally right flavor.

 

[the iconoclast]

*I would judge your actions as wrong,

Hey hey ken

Why are my actions wrong? What standard will you hold me to?

*You would probably judge your actions as justified

Ok. As far as one knows or can tell, you assume that I judge my actions as justified.

Let's set some conditions to the scenario.

1. I beat you up for no reason, I could and at that moment I felt like it.

2. I stole your shoes because I wanted to emasculate you.

3. I had no use for your shoes and gave them to the first person I saw without.

Am I immoral? How would you apply subjective morality here?

*The person you gave the shoes to would judge your actions as good assuming he is unaware of what you did to get the shoes.

Fair enough.

Who judges who?

Everybody involved, and all who observe will judge the actions from their perspective.

Well that bloke - who I gave the shoes to - just threw them in the bin and walked into the subway. It's your bloodied body on the ground and me in the community somewhere.

A. I assume you say I'm wrong for beating you up and taking your property.

B. I say good and evil I just social constructs. My might was more right than your might. I have not done any evil or thought evil, I just felt like beating you up.

Would you require justice?
What standard would you hold me to - now we know my motivation?
Who is the authority for such a standard?
Who judges who?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Thus the same actions may be judged as good or bad, and hence morality is subjective.

Hey hey kylie

In the meanwhile Ken's body lays bruised and bloodied on the ground.

Check out my latest reply to Kenny.

After reading my reply to Ken and you now understand my motivation, Am I immoral?

How do you judge my actions and who am I accountable to?

Who has the right to judge me?

Cheers

 

[stevevw]

Again; it’s not about seeing support or liking the idea, it has to be demonstratable/verifiable

Yes, I agree.

Mathematical equations are demonstratable/verifiable

They are not demonstratable if you don't understand the equation to explain to someone else. You just have to trust the theory verifies the objectivity of something like gravity or the Big Bang despite you or the other person not being able to work it out yourself. So to a degree, there is some trust and faith involved.

Independent of humans

is not a part of the definition of objective. It has nothing to do with it.

Yes, it does. IE here are a couple of articles that state objective morality is independent of human opinion, views, position or beliefs, etc.
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia
“To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independently of whether any human believes it to be so.
Philosophical Disquisitions: Craig on Objective Morality (Part Two)
The term “objective” employed here is notoriously difficult to explicate; it means something like “independent of human desires, perceptions, beliefs, and practices”
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

They have their own personal measure; whether it be the Golden rule, 10 commandments, their point of view, anything they value as a personal measure.

So when someone claims that another person is wrong and it's only their personal measure based on their opinion then how can they say the other person is really wrong. It's just their personal opinion and cannot be verified against an independent measure to see if it is objectively correct.

Why not?

Personal opinions cannot determine if something is really right because it is only the view of the person saying it. There is no independent measure to prove it is correct.

And is there a difference between wrong vs really wrong?

Yes when I say really wrong, I mean not just wrong because you say so but wrong because it has been proven wrong by an independent measure besides you.

Only when the terms are used out of context
No; they are only different
What's the difference between ultimate right vs right, and what is the difference between an ultimate claim vs a claim?

Ultimate right means it is objectively right and not just right because you say so. The same as the ultimate claim. It is just another way of saying objectively right or making an objective claim. There is no greater or correct right than an ultimate right. It is right for everyone.

Again; nothing is stopping them. If morality were objective, something would stop them

How could an objective moral stop someone from imposing their relative or subjective moral position on others. People can deny objective morality know and ignore any objective truth. Just because there is an objective truth or fact doesn't mean people are forced to go along with it. Look at Flat Earthers they choose to believe the earth is flat despite objective scientific facts its a sphere.

I got it from the definition of "objective" that which is objective is based on something without thought/non human. That's why morality which comes from humans is not objective.

That is talking about a human cannot be the one who measures an objective moral. But they can choose to believe and view that there are objective morals. But morality can only be believed and put into action by humans because morality is about doing right and wrong (moral duties/obligations). A non-thinking thing like a rock, chair, planet cannot have morality.

The shape of the Earth is round due to the definition of round. The definition of rape does not include wrong.

No objectivity is not in the definition as people may have different definitions. The earth is objectively round because the earth is round. The object being the earth is demonstratory round. So the objectivity of rape in the act of rape itself. We can demonstrate the act of rape and that is what we use to determine what rape is and not what you or I say it is.

 

[the iconoclast]

It makes about as much sense as a bunch of people judging which flavor of cake has the morally right flavor.

Hehehe... I like you saint

 

[VirOptimus]

Shifting and changing moral values associated with time and culture is relative to morality. The time or culture dictates what is morally right or wrong. But that does not mean there are no objective morals.

If we take the moral value of respect when greeting people. One culture may bow when greeting, one may hug or put faces together and one may shake hands. Any culture that does not greet in the way they believe is right will be offended. But they all believe in respect for people when greeting them so the moral is still objective that showing respect for people is the same for all cultures.

Plus just because a culture or person may choose to hold a different moral position to the objective one doesn't mean it is a subjective or relative one. Their moral position may be immoral compared to the objectively right thing to do. In the case of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape, he puts human wellbeing as the measure for objective morality.

So just because some culture, time, or individual says it's OK to rape it can be shown through science that rape causes harm and therefore affects human wellbeing. So there is an objective measure which shows that rape is always wrong regardless of relative or subjective positions.

I agree that what people claim is of no interest and that is what I have been saying. Their actions/reactions mean more to what they really believe about morality than what they claim. And it is these reactions that can be measured and a logical argument can be made that based on our lived moral experience (our actions/reactions) we can be justified to believe there are objective moral values.

As I said peoples actions/reaction contradict their claims to subjective morality. This shows that something within them contrary to what they have rationalized or justified is at work taking them over and showing that some things are always right or wrong to do regardless of subjective moral positions. .

Lots of empty assertions.

Again, where are theese ”objective morals”? How do we find them? And why do they matter? What happens when we go against ”objective morals”?

 

[stevevw]

Lots of empty assertions.
Again, where are these ”objective morals”? How do we find them? And why do they matter? What happens when we go against ”objective morals”?

Humm I don't think saying that just because peoples or cultures morals change that this does not mean there is no objective morality is an empty assertion. It is a logical statement and therefore self supporting.

As far as providing evidence for objective morality we only need to show that objectively morality is necessarily true. Being certain of something is only something humans can do, but showing something is necessarily true is based on propositions. IE we could have a complex mathematical formula which is necessarily true, if true but we may be uncertain about it. So the necessity and truth that there are objective morals don't have to be certain but rather be based on a proposition.

So we can make a logical proposition for the existence of objective morality. I have given the proposition earlier in this thread and here it is again.

Just like we can believe in the physical reality of the world around us based on our lived experience of it through our senses, we can use the same logic to believe in the reality of objective morality based on our lived moral experience. Any argument against our moral lived experience a similar argument can be made against our lived experience of our physical world. For example, maybe you are just a brain in a vat that is being fed a signal that has created a virtual world that looks like our physical reality and that you are sitting at your computer typing this post.

So without any reason to show that our lived experience of the physical world is unreal, you are justified to believe in what you experience as being real and true. It is the same for our lived moral experience that without any good reason or a defeater of our moral experience is totally unreal and we cannot realize objective morals at all we are justified to believe what our lived experience shows and tells us.

That moral lived experience tells us that people live like there are objective morals. I have given many examples of this but I shouldn't have to as if anyone just stops and thinks they will realize that we do believe that certain acts are always morally wrong regardless of subjective personal views or opinions. When we protest and condemn evil in the world we are not just expressing this as a personal view but like evil really does exist as a separate thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, that is so.

You cannot have objectivity without an objective agent, i.e. god(s).

We cannot ever se things other than from our own p.o.w.

If I were to start a cult and my followers proclaimed me an objective moral agent, does this make my moral claims exempt from subjectivity? I think not. The fact that I am capable of thought makes my moral claims subjective. If we assume the existence of the Christian God, the fact that his followers proclaim him an objective moral agent thus exempt from subjectivity is just as ridicules as my followers proclaiming me a moral agent thus exempt from subjectivity.