Where does morality come from?

[Ken-1122]

But they give some good logical arguments for objective morality. For example, rape is wrong because it can be scientifically shown that rape harms human wellbeing. Anyone who claims that rape is good can be shown to be objectively wrong through the scientific evidence that shows how rape harms people. Therefore under this position, we can show that rape is objectively wrong.

Morality is not defined as "in accordance with human well-being". IOW just because it causes harm to humans does not make it wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

I said all those questions are irrelevant in proving if objective morals exist. They are about epistemology, how we know something (the theory of knowledge). Whereas my assertion is about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). If you disagree that this is not the case then show why. But don't just say I am making an empty assertion.

Santa Clause exists under epistemology, but not ontologically. Just because you might know about something does not make it real

 

[VirOptimus]

See I could say that you keep making empty assertions by claiming that what I keep posting is not how it works without providing any evidence and without providing any support for how it should work.

Here's an example of how you use the "empty assertion" wrongly.
I said objective morality can be supported by lived moral experience. You said
No, I contest that we cannot see it "in action", "we" certainly does not know its there.
I gave one example of how we can measure moral acts objectively through human wellbeing. That rape can be scientifically shown to harm human wellbeing. Science proves the objectivity of morality. You said that is not how it works. Yet I just showed you an example of how an act like rape can be objectively wrong.

Here is a question, do you think that there are some acts that are always wrong to do despite personal opinion such as sexually abusing a child for fun. Do you think that if anyone tried to rationalize and justify that it was morally good to do this that they would be a sick individual and the act would still be objectively wrong?

Heh, you just dont get it.

You assert that "human wellbeing" is some kind of objective value, that has no basis in reality. Human wellbeing is an argument that can be used for actions, laws, ethics, morals, but it is not someting that can be measured or even verified.

As I reject objective morals your question is nonsense.

That does not mean that I dont object to actions that I deem inapropriate, just that I can argue for my morals and dont fool myself into thinking they must be universal and "objective".

Also, where are those "objective morals"? Are we born with them? Are they transmitted to us? Where? And how can we find them?

 

[VirOptimus]

So wait a minute you made an assertion without any support so I guess that is also an empty assertion.
VirOptimus said: ↑
I'm saying that there are no such things as objective or subjective.
Now is that your subjective opinion or do you have some objective evidence to support this claim. So you are doing exactly what you are complaining I am doing. That is not how it works.

Here's another
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.
How does this prove that objective morality doesn't exist. Once again an empty assertion, in fact, a logical fallacy. Where is the evidence

In your first assertion, you are making a negative claim and under a logical argument, you can never prove a negative because you would have to show me that every single moral situation has never had an objective moral position. That I would say is impossible to do. But here's the crux of the logical argument. I am making a positive statement that objective morals exist. I only have to show this once to prove that objective moral exist.

You asked me where are these ”objective morals”? How do we find them? And why do they matter? What happens when we go against ”objective morals”?

I said all those questions are irrelevant in proving if objective morals exist. They are about epistemology, how we know something (the theory of knowledge). Whereas my assertion is about moral ontology (whether objective morality actually exists). If you disagree that this is not the case then show why. But don't just say I am making an empty assertion.

Show why I need to answer these questions to prove objective morality exists. But you have to ask yourself even if I could not answer those questions how does that disprove objective morality don't exist. They are irrelevant questions for my assertion.

So we have to establish the parameters for what needs to be substantiated before we can engage in a logical argument. I suggest that this is showing evidence that objective morality exists rather than all these other side questions you keep demanding I answer. But if you want I can go through the exercise and answer them just to prove my point.

All your arguments fall flat because you have not shown in any way that "objective morals" exist.

Seriously, you should study a moral philosophy 101, you are making a fool out of yourself.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is a question, do you think that there are some acts that are always wrong to do despite personal opinion such as sexually abusing a child for fun. Do you think that if anyone tried to rationalize and justify that it was morally good to do this that they would be a sick individual and the act would still be objectively wrong?

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

 

[stevevw]

If that were true I would never be tempted to do wrong. There are times I prefer to do wrong because it works to my advantage, even though I know I should do right.

I am explaining how subjective morality can never really measure right and wrong objectively. That doesn't mean someone hasn't got a conscience. Even if there were objective morality people can still deny them. Like you say they just have to ignore their conscience that is telling them something is wrong.

A thief prefers stealing because it works to his advantage, even though he knows it is wrong to steal. Your argument failed.

How does my argument fail? Just because there is objective morality doesn't mean people have to follow it. Just like they don't have to follow the law. They can break it if they want. But the fact that you say a thief knows that stealing is wrong in the first place shows that people know that certain things are wrong despite their subjective beliefs which may rationalize and justify them not to have to follow moral truths.

 

[stevevw]

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

I've heard it all now, the objective morality when you're not having objective morality. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are its a duck. That's a win win situation for you. If everyone agrees on morality it just happened to be subjective morality and if everyone doesn't agree it just happens to be subjective morality as well. So could we say that the 100% agreement about that act being right was a moral truth.

But that was not my question anyway. I was asking you not what you thought about what others would think. Do you think there were certain acts like sexually abusing a child that are always wrong despite subjective moral opinion? That if anyone claimed it was OK to do they still objectively wrong and a sick and deranged person to even think that.

 

[Moral Orel]

If that were true I would never be tempted to do wrong. There are times I prefer to do wrong because it works to my advantage, even though I know I should do right.

We all have to weigh our likes and dislikes against each other. I don't like to go to work, but I like to have money. So while I don't like work itself, I do like the advantage it gives me of having money to buy things.

A thief prefers stealing because it works to his advantage, even though he knows it is wrong to steal. Your argument failed.

So now a person can "know I should do right" and "know that is is wrong"? Now even knowledge is subjective?

No; nobody makes the flavor of cake a moral issue

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[Moral Orel]

Also, where are those "objective morals"? Are we born with them? Are they transmitted to us? Where? And how can we find them?

You ask weird questions. Sort of like asking, "Where is calculus?". Why do you talk about objective morality as though it should be in some location?

 

[stevevw]

Heh, you just dont get it.
You assert that "human wellbeing" is some kind of objective value, that has no basis in reality. Human wellbeing is an argument that can be used for actions, laws, ethics, morals, but it is not something that can be measured or even verified.

As I reject objective morals your question is nonsense.

So wellbeing is supported by science. there are certain conditions that determine human wellbeing through scientific evidence. This includes good physical and mental health. That is the objective measure that can be used to determine if an act is morally right or wrong. An act like rape can be scientifically verified to harm a person physically and mentally. Tests can be done to prove this. Therefore it can be objectively proven independently of human opinion that rape is wrong by how it damages human wellbeing.

Someone cannot dispute this as science doesn't lie. The science can show the damage done to tissue broken bones etc through medical tests, X-rays, etc which cause the body to not operate optimally in accordance with what has been determined as physical wellbeing.

Science through psychological evaluations and brain scans can show mental health problems such as trauma, shock, regression, anxiety which cause a person to not function in accordance with what has been determined as good mental wellbeing. That science is independent of human opinion so can be used to prove subjective views objectively wrong.

That does not mean that I dont object to actions that I deem inapropriate, just that I can argue for my morals and dont fool myself into thinking they must be universal and "objective".

Your avoiding the question. I asked do you think that certain acts like sexually abusing a child for fun is always wrong for everyone, not just you. That no one can say it is ever right regardless of yours or other people's personal opinions.

Also, where are those "objective morals"? Are we born with them? Are they transmitted to us? Where? And how can we find them?

You keep reverting back to irrelevant questions. Regardless of how I answer they prove nothing. If I said objective morals come from some transient being on the planet Pluto what will that achieve? How will that affect my claim that objective morals exist? Could you go and find them. Is there any direct evidence for them. If there is not does that mean they dont exist.

 

[Speedwell]

I've heard it all now, the objective morality when you're not having objective morality. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are its a duck. That's a win win situation for you. If everyone agrees on morality it just happened to be subjective morality and if everyone doesn't agree it just happens to be subjective morality as well. So could we say that the 100% agreement about that act being right was a moral truth.

But that was not my question anyway. I was asking you not what you thought about what others would think. Do you think there were certain acts like sexually abusing a child that are always wrong despite subjective moral opinion? That if anyone claimed it was OK to do they still objectively wrong and a sick and deranged person to even think that.

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

 

[VirOptimus]

So wellbeing is supported by science. there are certain conditions that determine human wellbeing through scientific evidence. This includes good physical and mental health. That is the objective measure that can be used to determine if an act is morally right or wrong. An act like rape can be scientifically verified to harm a person physically and mentally. Tests can be done to prove this. Therefore it can be objectively proven independently of human opinion that rape is wrong by how it damages human wellbeing.

Someone cannot dispute this as science doesn't lie. The science can show the damage done to tissue broken bones etc through medical tests, X-rays, etc which cause the body to not operate optimally in accordance with what has been determined as physical wellbeing.

Science through psychological evaluations and brain scans can show mental health problems such as trauma, shock, regression, anxiety which cause a person to not function in accordance with what has been determined as good mental wellbeing. That science is independent of human opinion so can be used to prove subjective views objectively wrong.

Your avoiding the question. I asked do you think that certain acts like sexually abusing a child for fun is always wrong for everyone, not just you. That no one can say it is ever right regardless of yours or other people's personal opinions.

You keep reverting back to irrelevant questions. Regardless of how I answer they prove nothing. If I said objective morals come from some transient being on the planet Pluto what will that achieve? How will that affect my claim that objective morals exist? Could you go and find them. Is there any direct evidence for them. If there is not does that mean they dont exist.

Aa I suspected, you cant answer. Thats because you are in error.

 

[Speedwell]

So wellbeing is supported by science. there are certain conditions that determine human wellbeing through scientific evidence. This includes good physical and mental health. That is the objective measure that can be used to determine if an act is morally right or wrong. An act like rape can be scientifically verified to harm a person physically and mentally. Tests can be done to prove this. Therefore it can be objectively proven independently of human opinion that rape is wrong by how it damages human wellbeing.

Someone cannot dispute this as science doesn't lie. The science can show the damage done to tissue broken bones etc through medical tests, X-rays, etc which cause the body to not operate optimally in accordance with what has been determined as physical wellbeing.

Science through psychological evaluations and brain scans can show mental health problems such as trauma, shock, regression, anxiety which cause a person to not function in accordance with what has been determined as good mental wellbeing. That science is independent of human opinion so can be used to prove subjective views objectively wrong.

Your avoiding the question. I asked do you think that certain acts like sexually abusing a child for fun is always wrong for everyone, not just you. That no one can say it is ever right regardless of yours or other people's personal opinions.

You keep reverting back to irrelevant questions. Regardless of how I answer they prove nothing. If I said objective morals come from some transient being on the planet Pluto what will that achieve? How will that affect my claim that objective morals exist? Could you go and find them. Is there any direct evidence for them. If there is not does that mean they dont exist.

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

 

[Ken-1122]

I am explaining how subjective morality can never really measure right and wrong objectively. That doesn't mean someone hasn't got a conscience. Even if there were objective morality people can still deny them. Like you say they just have to ignore their conscience that is telling them something is wrong.

That has nothing to do with what you said, and I responded to.
You said under subjective morality right and wrong is the same as likes and dislikes
Those were your exact words, and that’s what I responded to. Now you are trying to change it.

How does my argument fail? Just because there is objective morality doesn't mean people have to follow it.

You said when someone makes a judgment about stealing, they are saying they don’t like stealing. I disagree and I gave the example of the thief who likes to steal even though he knows it is wrong. Again; just because you like something doesn’t mean you believe it is right, and just because you dislike something doesn’t mean you believe it is wrong. That’s why your argument fails.

 

[Ken-1122]

We all have to weigh our likes and dislikes against each other. I don't like to go to work, but I like to have money. So while I don't like work itself, I do like the advantage it gives me of having money to buy things.

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

So now a person can "know I should do right" and "know that is is wrong"? Now even knowledge is subjective?

Knowledge about moral issues is subjective; Yes!

Argumentum ad populum.

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

 

[stevevw]

Aa I suspected, you cant answer. Thats because you are in error.

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

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

 

[Ken-1122]

Your avoiding the question. I asked do you think that certain acts like sexually abusing a child for fun is always wrong for everyone, not just you. That no one can say it is ever right regardless of yours or other people's personal opinions.

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

You keep reverting back to irrelevant questions. Regardless of how I answer they prove nothing. If I said objective morals come from some transient being on the planet Pluto what will that achieve? How will that affect my claim that objective morals exist?

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

Could you go and find them. Is there any direct evidence for them.

If you provide direct evidence…yeah!

If there is not does that mean they dont exist.

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

 

[stevevw]

That has nothing to do with what you said, and I responded to.
You said under subjective morality right and wrong is the same as likes and dislikes
Those were your exact words, and that’s what I responded to. Now you are trying to change it.

You said when someone makes a judgment about stealing, they are saying they don’t like stealing. I disagree and I gave the example of the thief who likes to steal even though he knows it is wrong. Again; just because you like something doesn’t mean you believe it is right, and just because you dislike something doesn’t mean you believe it is wrong. That’s why your argument fails.

OK I will put it in a way that you can understand. I said under subjective morality morals are similar to "likes and dislikes". You said

If that were true I would never be tempted to do wrong. There are times I prefer to do wrong because it works to my advantage, even though I know I should do right.

But you're assuming that subjective morality is the only way to measure right and wrong and that "likes and dislikes" still don't motivate people to not do something wrong. It is obvious that people have a conscience, as you said you know the difference between right and wrong so therefore there must be something telling you what right and wrong is.

Not liking something such as not liking the consequences of a wrong action can motivate you to not do something wrong. And liking something can motivate you to do something wrong even though you know it is wrong.

But also what if objective morality is true. Then though subjective morality only measures what you "like or dislike" then objective morality would be why you still have a conscience and know right from wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

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

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

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

 

[Ken-1122]

OK I will put it in a way that you can understand. I said under subjective morality morals are similar to "likes and dislikes".

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

You said

If that were true I would never be tempted to do wrong. There are times I prefer to do wrong because it works to my advantage, even though I know I should do right.

But you're assuming that subjective morality is the only way to measure right and wrong and that "likes and dislikes" still don't motivate people to not do something wrong.

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

But also what if objective morality is true. Then though subjective morality only measures what you "like or dislike" then objective morality would be why you still have a conscience and know right from wrong.

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