Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

And I'd add, what does even "acting like something is objective" even mean? Acting like something is right? Is there an action I take that I think is wrong? I might think it is wrong sometimes, but clearly I think I'm justified in making an exception for myself. Right?

I'd say "acting under the belief that the thing in question is objective."

Someone who thinks that morality is objective should try to explain how their behavior is any different from someone who doesn't believe that.

That's a good question, and I'd certainly like to see the answer.

 

[Moral Orel]

I know what it feels like to care about someone.

Okay, and what sort of feelings are they? How do you feel when someone you care about feels bad? How do you feel when you do something that makes someone you care about feel good?

What type of proof are you looking for?

Whatever you've got. It's your claim, let's see the best evidence you have.

Why is ice cream a moral issue for you?

Because I like it.

 

[stevevw]

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

That's correct, yet people believe it is something real, they will die for someone else, they will change their life for love and they believe that their partner loves them and is not having an affair based on the person's behaviour in how they act in a loving way towards them.

So this is the evidence for love that people use to verify love is real. The same with morality. If a people act and react like morals are objective then we can be justified in believing that our lived moral experience is a real indication of what morality is.

 

[stevevw]

I'd say "acting under the belief that the thing in question is objective."
That's a good question, and I'd certainly like to see the answer.

The point I was making is that people who claim that morality is a subjective act and react like morality is objective. That's an important distinction. They are behaving contradictory to their professed views on morality. So rhetoric is one thing, it's one thing to sit around a table professing that morality is subjective and everyone gives their opinions which may be different. This is not necessarily what they deeply believe.

But when in life's situations, when they are wronged or when they are confronted with that wrong or injustice they react objectively, condemning and protesting against that wrong. So everything they said around that table like its OK to do this or that or I don't think and moral act is always wrong is contradicted. Because they react like people can't do this and that and that there are certain wrongs that are always wrong despite subjective morality. I would say how they act and react in real-life situations is the true indication of what they really believe.

It is not the popularity of objective morality that gives support that objective morals exist but that people react against their own professed subjectivity that gives empirical support for objective morality. There is something within them that is beyond their personal views that take over them to express the truth of right and wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, people do act like that.

But you claim that their actions mean the moral ideas they share are objectively true because they share it.

How many times do I need to say that people acting like something is objective does not make that thing objective?

It is not that they share it as in discussing the topic. I am talking about reacting an action. Their action contradicts what they view and claim. If every reasonable person does this then you can begin to make a case that there is something going on. Some force is at work. Call it nature or whatever but it is causing people to act that way.

See I asked you a question about your subjective moral position. You find it hard to answer this question because if you do you will contradict your own moral position. That is what I am talking about. It is not just based on popularity but it is about being a hostile witness to your own moral position that lends support to objective morality. Something independent to you is causing a conflict with your moral position in that you find it hard to admit it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Okay, and what sort of feelings are they? How do you feel when someone you care about feels bad? How do you feel when you do something that makes someone you care about feel good?

It depends on the person. If it is a person close to me like a brother, I feel good when they feel happy, and bad when they feel bad. If it is someone I don’t know, but care about as a fellow human being, I feel nothing regardless of whether they feel good or bad.

Whatever you've got. It's your claim, let's see the best evidence you have.

I’ve never claimed to have any evidence. But then I don’t always need evidence to believe something to be true.

Because I like it.

What about colors? Do you like any of them enough to make them a moral issue?

 

[stevevw]

No. And even your source doesn't really say that. Even so, it does not exhaust the possibilities of non-objective morality.

I am not sure what you are implying. From everything I have read and researched subjective is something that comes from the subjective. In the case of morality that would be the person (human). That can only be something that is personal to them.

Even if people get together they are expressing a bunch of individual opinions that they happen to agree with. But still, because there is no independent measure of things even a consensus of opinion is not a true measure or right and wrong. Groups can be influenced by many things as to why they think something is right or wrong.

There is groupthink, and things like ulterior motives, money, power, etc can influence people. In fact, power is a strong influence on a group of people to take control of others and enforce what they think is right. Just think of politics.

Just because our "conscience" tells us something is always morally wrong doesn't mean that it is objectively wrong.

When every reasonable person acts against their own subjective moral position saying that certain wrongs are always wrong and no one can rationalize or justify they are good you begin to gather empirical support that this is a true statement. This is even acknowledged in psychology and philosophy. When people act like this they are not just expressing their personal opinion but a moral truth that applies universally.

 

[Ken-1122]

The point I was making is that people who claim that morality is a subjective act and react like morality is objective. That's an important distinction.

How is acting like morality is objective different than acting like morality is subjective?

 

[stevevw]

How is acting like morality is objective different than acting like morality is subjective?

It is not so much acting like morality is objective or subjective. It is acting like morality is objective when you say that morality is subjective. You are acting against your own moral position. It is like saying I am a liberal in politics and then acting like a socialist. That shows that what you really believe, is socialism.

But it is even more than that. Because objective morality is supposed to be something independent of you then whatever is causing you to contradict your moral position is not you, it is something beyond you taking over.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's correct, yet people believe it is something real, they will die for someone else,

People do lots of things due to reactions in the brain, they aren't doing that because they believe love is a real thing, they do it because the feeling of love is real to them.

 

[Moral Orel]

It depends on the person. If it is a person close to me like a brother, I feel good when they feel happy, and bad when they feel bad. If it is someone I don’t know, but care about as a fellow human being, I feel nothing regardless of whether they feel good or bad.

Why do you think you care about people you don't know if you feel nothing for them? If you feel nothing, it sounds like you don't care at all. What is caring without emotion?

I’ve never claimed to have any evidence. But then I don’t always need evidence to believe something to be true.

Without evidence, there's no reason to think it's true. That's what evidence is, a reason to believe something. So if you just believe things without reason, then you aren't a reasonable person. Are you not a reasonable person? Should I believe your claim without any reason to? If I have no reason to believe your claim, why shouldn't I simply reject your argument?

What about colors? Do you like any of them enough to make them a moral issue?

Nope. I'm glad to see you've reconciled the fact that ice cream flavor is just as valid as a moral issue as murder is though.

 

[Ken-1122]

It is not so much acting like morality is objective or subjective. It is acting like morality is objective when you say that morality is subjective.

But the reason people who act that way say morality is subjective is because they believe that it is! So when someone says morality is subjective, perhaps you should consider however they act and react to moral issues is how people behave when they believe morality is subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why do you think you care about people you don't know if you feel nothing for them? If you feel nothing, it sounds like you don't care at all. What is caring without emotion?

I don’t need to be involved in people’s every day lives to care about them.

Without evidence, there's no reason to think it's true. That's what evidence is, a reason to believe something. So if you just believe things without reason, then you aren't a reasonable person. Are you not a reasonable person? Should I believe your claim without any reason to? If I have no reason to believe your claim, why shouldn't I simply reject your argument?

I have no evidence that my car will start. I have a reason to believe it will start due to the fact it was running fine when I parked it, but as far as direct evidence; I have none yet when I go to the store tomorrow, I will approach my car with the expectation that it will start. There are a lot of things I do in life based on assumption

. I'm glad to see you've reconciled the fact that ice cream flavor is just as valid as a moral issue as murder is though.

I haven’t reconciled that as a fact; those are your views not mine (and even then I have my suspicions about your claim).

 

[stevevw]

People do lots of things due to reactions in the brain, they aren't doing that because they believe love is a real thing, they do it because the feeling of love is real to them.

It's not just a feeling. There are actions that show it is more than a feeling. Yes, some people act on feeling alone, and that is what gets them into trouble some times. But most don't and they think about the situation and work out what is real or not.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don’t need to be involved in people’s every day lives to care about them.

That has nothing to do with what I asked. What is caring without emotions? How do you "care" and "feel nothing" at the same exact time?

I have no evidence that my car will start. I have a reason to believe it will start due to the fact it was running fine when I parked it, but as far as direct evidence; I have none yet when I go to the store tomorrow, I will approach my car with the expectation that it will start. There are a lot of things I do in life based on assumption

You tell me that you have no evidence that your car will start, and then you immediately tell me that you've started it before. You gotta be kidding me.

I haven’t reconciled that as a fact; those are your views not mine (and even then I have my suspicions about your claim).

I've satisfied all the criteria you presented for making something a moral issue. You have no reason to disagree anymore, so you stopped arguing about it and started talking about colors. I've presented ample similarities between ice cream flavors and things you consider moral issues and you have produced zero differences. The only reason you don't accept my description of morality is that you don't like it.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's correct, yet people believe it is something real, they will die for someone else, they will change their life for love and they believe that their partner loves them and is not having an affair based on the person's behaviour in how they act in a loving way towards them.

So this is the evidence for love that people use to verify love is real. The same with morality. If a people act and react like morals are objective then we can be justified in believing that our lived moral experience is a real indication of what morality is.

No that is en error.

There are people living like god(s) are real, god(s) that arent compatible with eachother even, that in no way supports that god(s) exist.

 

[stevevw]

But the reason people who act that way say morality is subjective is because they believe that it is! So when someone says morality is subjective, perhaps you should consider however they act and react to moral issues is how people behave when they believe morality is subjective.

When someone claims morality is subjective, that there are no universal rights and wrongs, that right and wrong is a personal view and then they get into a situation or observe a situation and begin to protest and condemn that situation as it should never be done and it is always wrong then they are contradicting their own moral position.

For example, they may say that there is no objective right and wrong when it comes to stealing. Then someone steals from them they react and condemn the act as no one should never steal. Or when someone says abusing a child can be justified under subjective morality and then sees some news article and comments that anyone who abuses their child is sick and it should never be right to abuse a
child. They are reacting against their own moral position.

I could name many situations like this. The whole of society acts like this. If you look at social media, comment sections under any news article of a crime against children, or on any forum, you will see this behaviour. If most of society supports subjective morality then they are sure not behaving that way.

 

[VirOptimus]

When someone claims morality is subjective, that there are no universal rights and wrongs, that right and wrong is a personal view and then they get into a situation or observe a situation and begin to protest and condemn that situation as it should never be done and it is always wrong then they are contradicting their own moral position.

For example, they may say that there is no objective right and wrong when it comes to stealing. Then someone steals from them they react and condemn the act as no one should never steal. Or when someone says abusing a child can be justified under subjective morality and then sees some news article and comments that anyone who abuses their child is sick and it should never be right to abuse a
child. They are reacting against their own moral position.

I could name many situations like this. The whole of society acts like this. If you look at social media, comment sections under any news article of a crime against children, or on any forum, you will see this behaviour. If most of society supports subjective morality then they are sure not behaving that way.

This so wrong. People act according to morals/ethics, they can only act according the morals/ethics they themself have, i.e. not ”objective” as an individual agent can never be objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

That has nothing to do with what I asked. What is caring without emotions? How do you "care" and "feel nothing" at the same exact time?

If I saw them being hurt I would care. But just them feeling bad, that isn’t enough for me to care.

You tell me that you have no evidence that your car will start, and then you immediately tell me that you've started it before. You gotta be kidding me.

No I am not kidding you

I've satisfied all the criteria you presented for making something a moral issue. You have no reason to disagree anymore, so you stopped arguing about it and started talking about colors. I've presented ample similarities between ice cream flavors and things you consider moral issues and you have produced zero differences. The only reason you don't accept my description of morality is that you don't like it.

“because you like it” is the only explanation you gave for you considering ice cream a moral issue. That may be good enough for you, but it isn’t for me.

 

[Ken-1122]

When someone claims morality is subjective, that there are no universal rights and wrongs, that right and wrong is a personal view and then they get into a situation or observe a situation and begin to protest and condemn that situation as it should never be done and it is always wrong then they are contradicting their own moral position.

For example, they may say that there is no objective right and wrong when it comes to stealing. Then someone steals from them they react and condemn the act as no one should never steal. Or when someone says abusing a child can be justified under subjective morality and then sees some news article and comments that anyone who abuses their child is sick and it should never be right to abuse a
child. They are reacting against their own moral position.

I could name many situations like this. The whole of society acts like this. If you look at social media, comment sections under any news article of a crime against children, or on any forum, you will see this behaviour. If most of society supports subjective morality then they are sure not behaving that way.

Consider the possibility that your idea of how a person is supposed to behave without believing there are universal rights, is wrong.