Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Now you're saying that I'm unreasonable again.

And the same applies as I previously said. I think we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about a person's ability to reasonably judge a moral action if things are being assessed as morals and not likes or dislikes. They don't have the same meaning, implications, and obligations. As it is important to judge a moral act properly to determine it being right or wrong being reasonable (being sound and fair) is important.

As mentioned in calling an act terrible or nice you are still making an objective claim because how are you determining the act as terrible. Who said its a terrible act. So don't you still need to be of sound mind and fair in determining what is terrible and nice or its that arbitrary to individual opinions.

 

[stevevw]

Uh, no. The nature of reality can not be figured out the way innocence or guilt can be decided in a court of law.

What do you mean by the nature of reality. We are talking about behavior (whether a person is acting as though morality is subjective or objective). Whether morality is subjective or objective doesn't matter in determining behavior. Sometimes courts use morality to discredit a witness IE bring up their marital affairs to show they have no scruples thus discrediting the witness.

If a person says I am a liberal but acts like a socialist in life then we can conclude they are really socialists by their actions. Likewise, if a person claims subjective morality but acts like there is objective morality then we can conclude they believe in objective morality deep down. It is the hostile witness against subjective morality that gives weight to the evidence.

Acting like morality is objective doesn't make morality objective.

It is not just acting like morality is objective. It is being a hostile witness against the persons own claimed subjective morality that gives more weight to objective morality being real. That's because something within people acts against what they like to think is the case. This points to something beyond them, outside them is causing them to act and react this way.

It comes back to the logical argument. We are justified to believe objective morals exist on the basis of our lived moral experience. Until someone comes up with a defeater of that experience we can be justified to believe it is a real representation of what reality is.

Any defeater of our moral experience would have to be as good as a defeater of our experience of the physical world and that we are not living in some virtual reality. It would have to completely show our experience of objective morality is totally unreal and unreliable.

Because once again you are insisting that people use words in a strictly technically correct way when communicating via that language.
But people don't do that.

Back to this again. I replied to your last claims and showed that there is an important distinction being made but you didn't reply. The implication for saying it was just an opinion when someone takes a stand on a moral act is it negates that stand because they are not really saying it is wrong truthfully but rather just offering an opinion (I think) it is wrong. So why make the stand in the first place.

But people don't want to project that indecision or being unsure when it comes to a horrible act. They condemn the act and the person doing it. They even protest in streets that its wrong and threaten people who did the act as the act should never be done. People argue and try to convince others that the act is morally wrong like its a "truth" statement.

If they are trying to convince someone why would they undermine their own argument with just an "opinion" it is wrong. The other person could say I don't believe you because it's just your opinion. You have no basis for claiming its wrong so why even try to convince or argue with them.

But in real life, people don't do that. They take a stand on what they believe is right and wrong and make "truth" statements to bolster and support their stand. That's because they know the act is either right or wrong and not (I think) it may be right or wrong or neither right or wrong.

Everyone knows it? Are you assuming this in order to prove your point?

No the evidence is there for all to see through lived moral experience. Just look at the way individuals, societies take stands on morality like there is only one way to see it. They protest, condemn, and impose morality on others with codes of conduct, laws, and rights.

There is no room for subjective views. Just look at the way someone sees a wrong like rape, child abuse, stealing, discrimination, etc. They say it is wrong and that no one can rationalize it into being OK despite subjective views.

When you say that it is based on Christian values, do you realize that many religions support the same values? It's not exclusive to Christianity, it's just plain old human decency.

But Christianity through Christ is the only religion that claims that they are the truth on morality and that all other religions are wrong. I have given a video for showing how we can determine Christianity as the only true religion here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWY-6xBA0Pk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRyq6RwzlEM

But in saying that all religions more or less have the same values and that it is common decency that shows that everyone intuitive knows about what is right and wrong. It seems a mighty big coincidence that everyone independently came to the same conclusion on morality.

Though not evidence in itself for objective morality based on numbers it does add a small piece of support along with other supports mentioned (lived experience) that there are objective moral values and duties.

 

[Moral Orel]

And the same applies as I previously said. I think we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about a person's ability to reasonably judge a moral action if things are being assessed as morals and not likes or dislikes. They don't have the same meaning, implications, and obligations.

I'm describing what morality is. Morality is likes and dislikes. You and I both judge moral acts the same way, I say they're bad, you say they're wrong. But for both of us, the only reasoning we ultimately justify our statements with is that we dislike them. Or vice versa, that I say something is good, you say something is right, and the only reasoning we ultimately justify our statements with is that we dislike them.

Also I noticed in calling an act you call terrible as terrible you are still making an objective claim because how are you determining the act as terrible. Who said its a terrible act.

Nope. "Terrible" is a subjective term, as in "My wife's cooking is terrible!". Something is terrible if I hate it. I'm granting you that right/wrong are objective words just like correct/incorrect. You don't get to just declare every word is objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

The default position would be where you are with no knowledge about your car at all. The default position is, "I dunno". You already have evidence in that your car has started, and you would require new evidence to change your mind. See that bolded part? That justifies your belief that it will start, that is evidence. You're labelling a position where you already have evidence "the default position". Your "default" position starts with evidence to support it.

As I said before, we don’t agree on what constitutes as evidence.

Do you believe that it is morally good to maintain your own happiness as well as the happiness of others? I do. I should be concerned for my own happiness. That's a moral statement just as much as "I should be concerned for the happiness of others". Is there anything wrong with what I've said so far?

I don’t think happiness has anything to do with morality.
So you like one flavor, you consider that flavor moral and the flavor you dislike you consider immoral?

 

[Moral Orel]

As I said before, we don’t agree on what constitutes as evidence.

It doesn't matter if you don't want to call it what it is, that's fine.

I don’t think happiness has anything to do with morality.

No? You don't think it's morally good to make others around you feel happy? That's kind of weird, bud.

 

[stevevw]

I'm describing what morality is. Morality is likes and dislikes. You and I both judge moral acts the same way, I say they're bad, you say they're wrong. But for both of us, the only reasoning we ultimately justify our statements with is that we dislike them. Or vice versa, that I say something is good, you say something is right, and the only reasoning we ultimately justify our statements with is that we dislike them.

But how can some only judge a right or wrong under an objective system by whether they like or dislike it. That contradicts and negates their moral position. Because the objectivist is saying that the wrong or right is always that way regardless of subjective opinion they are saying that its determination is independent of any personal "likes or dislikes".

A person may not even like the objective moral but respect its authority. For example, a person may like to take stuff sometimes and not pay for it. Or they may like to be free to have sex with whoever they like. But they know that this is wrong and that any personal rationalization for making it right based on personal likes does not stand.

Nope. "Terrible" is a subjective term, as in "My wife's cooking is terrible!". Something is terrible if I hate it. I'm granting you that right/wrong are objective words just like correct/incorrect. You don't get to just declare every word is objective.

Fair enough. Then under an objective moral system you have to be reasonable in determining whether something is right or wrong. But as you are not using that system you cannot be unreasonable.

 

[stevevw]

No? You don't think it's morally good to make others around you feel happy? That's kind of weird, bud.

Why should anyone think that? Who says happiness means morally right or good. The key is in saying "don't you think" which is subjective from the person and cannot independently determine moral acts.

Morality doesn't equate to "likes and dislikes". Someone else may have a different view of what makes people happy. A feeling is also subjective and arbitrary. A mobster can make his wife happy with blood money. A pedophile can be made happy by providing him access to children. People's happiness or sadness doesn't equate to right and wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

No? You don't think it's morally good to make others around you feel happy? That's kind of weird, bud.

No more than it is to make them laugh, surround them with beautiful art, or pleasant smells. I don’t see them as moral issues. Why do you consider happiness a moral issue?

 

[Moral Orel]

No more than it is to make them laugh, surround them with beautiful art, or pleasant smells. I don’t see them as moral issues. Why do you consider happiness a moral issue?

I think being nice is a moral issue, feel free to disagree. It's weird, but go ahead.

 

[Moral Orel]

But how can some only judge a right or wrong under an objective system by whether they like or dislike it. That contradicts and negates their moral position. Because the objectivist is saying that the wrong or right is always that way regardless of subjective opinion they are saying that its determination is independent of any personal "likes or dislikes".

Yep, people are incorrect that morality is objective. They feel so strongly about things that they feel others should agree, but the justification for why something is right or wrong always boils down to feelings. That's why it's subjective even though people mistakenly feel like it's objective. For instance, when I found out my wife doesn't like chocolate I exclaimed, "What are you, nuts?!" Chocolate is so good, and so many people agree that it is delicious, that when I find someone who dislikes it, it feels like they shouldn't, but there isn't any logical reason for that.

A person may not even like the objective moral but respect its authority. For example, a person may like to take stuff sometimes and not pay for it. Or they may like to be free to have sex with whoever they like. But they know that this is wrong and that any personal rationalization for making it right based on personal likes does not stand.

See, you keep claiming that people "know" things are wrong, when in reality they simply feel that they are bad. There are lots of reasons people have mixed emotions about things. Shame is a big one. You can make someone ashamed of basically anything they like, and then they'll like it but also feel they shouldn't do it.

Fair enough. Then under an objective moral system you have to be reasonable in determining whether something is right or wrong. But as you are not using that system you cannot be unreasonable.

So we agree, no one has to declare things to be morally right or wrong in order to be reasonable. I hope you'll refrain in the future from repeating your claim that, "Any reasonable person will agree such and such is wrong".

 

[Ken-1122]

I think being nice is a moral issue, feel free to disagree. It's weird, but go ahead.

You didn’t say anything about being nice, you said maintaining happiness and making people happy. Which is it?

 

[stevevw]

Yep, people are incorrect that morality is objective. They feel so strongly about things that they feel others should agree, but the justification for why something is right or wrong always boils down to feelings.

No I make a "truth" statement when I say that acts are morally wrong. It's based on a belief that the act is wrong independent of personal feelings about it. Feelings are subjective and don't say anything about whether the act is morally right or wrong factually. People will feel different things about the situation and whether something is right or wrong and even good or bad. There will be no consistent measure and therefore it doesn't have any grounding.

It doesn't allow people to take their stand on morality any further than their own heads or hearts because people will just say, "who says your right you're just expressing a feeling". So this just undermining any stand a person tries to make about morality.

That's why it's subjective even though people mistakenly feel like it's objective.

But people are making a "truth" statement that they believe the act is always morally wrong. It has to go beyond feelings to make any sense. Otherwise everyone is living a delusion about morality and there is no true right and wrong.

For instance when I found out my wife doesn't like chocolate I exclaimed, "What are you, nuts?!" Chocolate is so good, and so many people agree that it is delicious, that when I find someone who dislikes it, it feels like they shouldn't, but there isn't any logical reason for that.

Therefore when transferred onto moral situations it becomes a different proposition than likes and dislikes about tastes. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't like chocolate, it's not a morally right or wrong act. But it does matter about morality about acts that violate, take, hurt life. It matters to be able to make a "truth statement" and not just express feelings or opinion like " I feel or I think its wrong". That doesn't say anything in condemning wrong any more than expressing a taste for one food over another.

Otherwise, any behavior can be justified as right because feeling is arbitrary and have to clear grounding for morality. So despite you injecting moral words and connotations into the equation, feelings that someone shouldn't do something is not about morality and has no basis to independently determine moral behavior.

See, you keep claiming that people "know" things are wrong when in reality they simply feel that they are bad. There are lots of reasons people have mixed emotions about things. Shame is a big one. You can make someone ashamed of basically anything they like, and then they'll like it but also feel they shouldn't do it.

People will feel ashamed or not through being guilty or not guilty. If they are not guilty of a moral wrong then they can be justified not be ashamed. If they have done wrong then they will feel guilty for good reason and therefore ashamed.

It is this clear line that objectively shows what is right and wrong that allows people to be accused or excused in their conscience that everyone knows which is the real measure of morality. The fact that you say under subjectivity you can make people feel ashamed when they may not have done anything wrong shows how feelings are arbitrary and not a good way to measure moral behavior.

So we agree, no one has to declare things to be morally right or wrong in order to be reasonable. I hope you'll refrain in the future from repeating your claim that, "Any reasonable person will agree such and such is wrong".

The problem is you are not talking about morality. Your talking about "liking or disliking" something which has nothing to do with being morally right or wrong. You cannot be unreasonable in your judgment for "likes and dislikes" but you can for moral right and wrong.

Just to be clear are you saying that if a pedophile sexually abuses a child that we cannot say that the pedophile is being unreasonable (unfair and unsound) in their judgment if they claim it is OK and the right to sexually abuse a child.

 

[Moral Orel]

You didn’t say anything about being nice, you said maintaining happiness and making people happy. Which is it?

You don't think that making someone happy is a nice thing to do?

 

[Speedwell]

No I make a "truth" statement when I say that acts are morally wrong. It's based on a belief that the act is wrong independent of personal feelings about it. Feelings are subjective and don't say anything about whether the act is morally right or wrong factually. People will feel different things about the situation and whether something is right or wrong and even good or bad. There will be no consistent measure and therefore it doesn't have any grounding.

It doesn't allow people to take their stand on morality any further than their own heads or hearts because people will just say, "who says your right you're just expressing a feeling". So this just undermining any stand a person tries to make about morality.
But people are making a "truth" statement that they believe the act is always morally wrong. It has to go beyond feelings to make any sense. Otherwise everyone is living a delusion about morality and there is no true right and wrong. Therefore when transferred onto moral situations it becomes a different proposition than likes and dislikes about tastes. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't like chocolate, it's not a morally right or wrong act. But it does matter about morality about acts that violate, take, hurt life. It matters to be able to make a "truth statement" and not just express feelings or opinion like " I feel or I think its wrong". That doesn't say anything in condemning wrong any more than expressing a taste for one food over another.

Otherwise, any behavior can be justified as right because feeling is arbitrary and have to clear grounding for morality. So despite you injecting moral words and connotations into the equation, feelings that someone shouldn't do something is not about morality and has no basis to independently determine moral behavior.

People will feel ashamed or not through being guilty or not guilty. If they are not guilty of a moral wrong then they can be justified not be ashamed. If they have done wrong then they will feel guilty for good reason and therefore ashamed.

It is this clear line that objectively shows what is right and wrong that allows people to be accused or excused in their conscience that everyone knows which is the real measure of morality. The fact that you say under subjectivity you can make people feel ashamed when they may not have done anything wrong shows how feelings are arbitrary and not a good way to measure moral behavior.

The problem is you are not talking about morality. Your talking about "liking or disliking" something which has nothing to do with being morally right or wrong. You cannot be unreasonable in your judgment for "likes and dislikes" but you can for moral right and wrong.

Just to be clear are you saying that if a pedophile sexually abuses a child that we cannot say that the pedophile is being unreasonable (unfair and unsound) in their judgment if they claim it is OK and the right to sexually abuse a child.

Do you really not get it? I mean, really? That morality is a social phenomenon? They way you go on, it appears that you think that morality is either dictated by an outside source or purely the result of individual ratiocination, without regard to the larger society in which the individual finds himself.

Let me ask you this question: If you were permanently marooned alone on a distant asteroid, without hope of rescue or even communication with others, what immoral acts could you commit?

 

[Moral Orel]

No I make a "truth" statement when I say that acts are morally wrong. It's based on a belief that the act is wrong independent of personal feelings about it.

I know that you do, and I'm saying you are incorrect to do so.

Feelings are subjective and don't say anything about whether the act is morally right or wrong factually. People will feel different things about the situation and whether something is right or wrong and even good or bad. There will be no consistent measure and therefore it doesn't have any grounding.

It doesn't allow people to take their stand on morality any further than their own heads or hearts because people will just say, "who says your right you're just expressing a feeling". So this just undermining any stand a person tries to make about morality.

But people are making a "truth" statement that they believe the act is always morally wrong. It has to go beyond feelings to make any sense. Otherwise everyone is living a delusion about morality and there is no true right and wrong. Therefore when transferred onto moral situations it becomes a different proposition than likes and dislikes about tastes. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't like chocolate, it's not a morally right or wrong act. But it does matter about morality about acts that violate, take, hurt life. It matters to be able to make a "truth statement" and not just express feelings or opinion like " I feel or I think its wrong". That doesn't say anything in condemning wrong any more than expressing a taste for one food over another.

Otherwise, any behavior can be justified as right because feeling is arbitrary and have to clear grounding for morality. So despite you injecting moral words and connotations into the equation, feelings that someone shouldn't do something is not about morality and has no basis to independently determine moral behavior.

What you've written here is known as an "Appeal to consequences" fallacy. Essentially what you're saying is that if what I have said is true, it would have bad consequences, so it must be false. But that's fallacious.

People will feel ashamed or not through being guilty or not guilty.

No, people feel shame from social pressure, upbringing, etc. Sometimes that shame lines up with things you feel are immoral, sometimes it doesn't.

The problem is you are not talking about morality. Your talking about "liking or disliking" something which has nothing to do with being morally right or wrong.

I am describing what morality actually is.

Just to be clear are you saying that if a pedophile sexually abuses a child that we cannot say that the pedophile is being unreasonable (unfair and unsound) in their judgment if they claim it is OK and the right to sexually abuse a child.

Yes, for the umpteenth time I don't judge such an act on reasonability! What in the world does such a thing have to do with using reason? It's a vile thing to do, it's judged on how terrible I feel it is.

What you keep doing here is known as an "Appeal to emotions" fallacy. Remember when I shared the analogy of my wife hating chocolate? I explained that a feeling can be so strong that you actually feel you are reasonable to hold it. So what you are trying to do is use some act that invokes such strong emotions that I'll agree with you. But that's fallacious.

 

[Ken-1122]

You don't think that making someone happy is a nice thing to do?

I do!

 

[Moral Orel]

I do!

Okay, is being nice a good thing to do?

 

[stevevw]

Do you really not get it? I mean, really? That morality is a social phenomenon?

I am not denying morality cannot be experienced at a social level. How do you know that the morals you say are subjective are not the objective ones we already have known within us and we just think they are subjective. That we have just discovered them and not invented them.

The way you go on, it appears that you think that morality is either dictated by an outside source or purely the result of individual ratiocination, without regard to the larger society in which the individual finds himself.

It seems by your language that you are claiming that you are exclusively right and I am wrong and I don't get the truth about morality. Isn't that an objective position in itself. You are proving my point by insisting that you are right and I am wrong.

If I occupy such an out of step position then why do most people support the idea of objective morality whether they believe in subjective or objective morality? Most people acknowledge that certain moral acts are always wrong regardless of personal views. They know this because of entertaining the idea that things like rape, child abuse, and stealing from hard-working people are just plain wrong always and there's no rationality for it being OK.

When you say morality is a social phenomenon that is just your way of trying to validate some truth for subjective morality and give it some grounding. That if a large group of people agrees then that must make the act wrong. But people on your side in this debate have been telling me over and over again that just because many agree with a moral doesn't make it right. Well the same logic should apply to subjective morality and in fact more so.

Like I said we have seen countless times how society and large groups of people have agreed on morality only to find they were wrong. If what you say is correct that the criteria for making a moral right and good is a society socially agreeing then this should apply to societies that agree on morals that we find wrong and despicable. Yet it seems many of us condemn other societies' morality and say they should be more like us. Who is right, who is wrong? Who knows because there is no independent way of measuring things.

Let me ask you this question: If you were permanently marooned alone on a distant asteroid, without hope of rescue or even communication with others, what immoral acts could you commit?

As we are born with the knowledge of moral values then the same moral laws would apply whether we live here on earth, were born on a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific or on an asteroid, and never having contact with anyone to teach us those laws.

 

[Ken-1122]

Okay, is being nice a good thing to do?

Sometimes, but not always a morally good thing to do.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not denying morality cannot be experienced at a social level. It seems by your language that you claiming you are exclusively right and I am wrong and don't get the truth about morality. Isn't that an objective position in itself from someone that believes in subjectivity. You are proving my point by insisting that you are right and I am wrong.

I'm not insisting anything. My position is that the existence of objective morality is an unfalsifiable proposition; I cannot logically insist that it does not exist.

When you say morality is a social phenomenon that is just your way of trying to validate some truth for subjective morality.

That is an highly offensive comment. Just because you routinely argue dishonestly does not mean that you are justified in accusing others of it. Morality is a social phenomenon whether it is objective or not.

As we are born with the knowledge of moral values then the same moral laws would apply whether we live here on earth, were born on a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific or on an asteroid, and never having contact with anyone to teach us those laws.

That's not the question am asking. What moral laws can a person permanently marooned alone possibly break?