Where does morality come from?

[Speedwell]

Personally you may believe that their opinion is not valid but under the system of subjective morality, you have to acknowledge that their opinion is just as valid as yours and has a right to stand as it is just another subjective opinion under that system.

Where do you get the idea that subjective opinions about morality are the same as subjective morality?

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.

But as this thread amply demonstrates, some of them are.

 

[Speedwell]

I did two majors counseling and also child, youth, and family studies. Both having units in psychology and sociology.

Neither of which is, strictly speaking, a humanities major.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I agree. That is why so many believe that subjective morality transcends conscious rational deliberation.

What do you mean by this? How can a subjective view from a human transcend a human's view and still be subjective?

Not a very convincing case so far. But I agree that morality comes from elsewhere than conscious rational deliberation.

I presented the proposition before as here

Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise.
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational, transcendent source (logically follows from 1, 2, and 3).

Most philosophers agree that morality is a rational exercise so I cannot see any issues with premise 1.
Like I said premise 2 is the most contentious but there are good arguments that support moral realism. I think most people agree premise 3 that humans cannot know everything there is to know about moral reasoning to be able to know the truth and facts about morality so they cannot be grounded in humans.

Once we get to this point the first 3 premises follow logically to premise 4 that if we cannot ground morality in humans and we accept the first 3 premises then it logically follows that morals need to be grounded in a rational and necessary source that knows all the truth and facts about morality. That points to some transcendent entity, not necessarily God.

That's odd, because it seems to me that people in this discussion were using those arguments to show that morality is not objectve.

I think they may have been presenting them for both subjective and objective morality. As mentioned people were using human wellbeing as the objective measure similar to what Sam Harris does. This is a common way to try and show objective morality without invoking a transcendent being such as God. It is more or less using science as a scientific measure for human wellbeing can be shown. I think evolution is used to explain how a natural law explanation for objective morality with human instinct.

Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science? – The New Behaviorism

No, you have just misunderstood those ideas and made yourself look silly.

Then you need to show me how I have done this. How have I misunderstood the way evolution, human wellbeing, and natural laws cannot account for moral right and wrong in any independent away from human personal opinions or appeal to ideas that have nothing to do with what is right and wrong morally.

 

[VirOptimus]

Personally you may believe that their opinion is not valid but under the system of subjective morality, you have to acknowledge that their opinion is just as valid as yours and has a right to stand as it is just another subjective opinion under that system.

Morality is based on philosophical beliefs that are not measured directly by science so this is a different form of evidence-based which is based on propositions. But if you want the type of evidence that you claim by science then the only way is through indirect evidence which comes from lived moral experience.

Then why do most people IE
Most of us see ourselves as capable of recognizing what is good, bad, valuable, and worthwhile. We think of ourselves as beings whose moral beliefs — about the badness of suffering, for example — are objectively true.
https://arcdigital.media/morals-are-objective-d647dc5bf12a

People are often unwilling to think of ethics as their own preferences, rather than demands from something more transcendent. For instance, it’s normal to claim that one really wants to make one choice, but it’s only ethical to make the other.
Morality is subjective preference, but it can be objectively wrong

including the experts say that our lived experience shows there are objective morals. IE
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism?
A 2009 PhilPapers survey shows that 56.4% of philosophers were moral realists, 27.7% weren’t, and 15.9% held some other position. For every philosopher who thinks there aren’t any objective moral facts, two philosophers think there are.

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.

But if the question was not “is moral realism true” but “is there a good case to be made for moral realism”, I suspect the percentage would jump from 56.4% to somewhere in the high nineties.
Are there good arguments for objective morality? What do philosophers think about moral realism? : AskPhilosophyFAQ

So just about all the experts in the field of ethics and morality, the ones who understand and know best about morality think there is a good case for morals being objective.

I don't get your argument, it is a strange logic. You earlier were using animals as having similar morals to humans. I was saying that if morality was created by evolution, the need to survive then just like the lion killing another lion and their cubs would be OK to do if it meant survival. In other words, evolution does not explain the moral right and wrong.

Please refer to the above link I have posted. Actually it seems you link lend more support for what I am saying. IE
Moral relativism is an important topic in metaethics. It is also widely discussed outside philosophy (for example, by political and religious leaders), and it is controversial among philosophers and nonphilosophers alike. This is perhaps not surprising in view of recent evidence that people's intuitions about moral relativism vary widely. Though many philosophers are quite critical of moral relativism, there are several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it.

Your link seems to say that moral relativism is a controversial topic among philosophers. That many philosophers are critical of moral relativism and only several philosophers defend it. This supports my link that the majority of philosophers support moral realism. Just a footnote moral relativism though similar to subjective morality is a little different in that moral relativity usually applies to cultures having different moral views to their relative position.

OK then I have to point out again that
If the measurement point for moral right and wrong is within humans then whatever and whoever can make a good argument for what is right and wrong will be the measure of what is right and wrong. That could be almost anything and we have seen this in society. IE a moral wrong can be argued as right and there is no way to independently measure it is truthfully bad.

My point is is that a subjective moral system cannot determine what is ultimately right or wrong morally and therefore what you consider a moral wrong can be justified as being OK to do. You have to accept that is part of the system. Whereas under an objective system I can say no that claim that the act is a valid subjective view is objectively wrong no matter what the person argues or claims.

A subjective moral system has no real authority to weed out what we would consider always wrong because there is no way to tell. Your personal opinion is not enough as the person claiming the moral position you think is horrible can claim that this is my personal view and I have just as much right as you to hold that.

So what about those in other countries who believe that a woman should not have the same status as a male today. Do they have a right to hold that view under a subjective moral system?

The problem you have with trying to make moral meaning out of a subjective system is that because it always changes and allows relative and subjective positions it has to allow all those different positions whether 100 or 10 years ago or now or whether in one country or culture or another. It all doesn't matter because morals are subjective and relative and all views count. None or more right than others.

You can personally say they are wrong but under the system of subjective morality, you cannot say that differing views you may find evil are wrong. Because people who hold those evil views don't think they are evil but in fact are OK. So who is truthfully right or wrong, who knowns as there is no independent measure outside personal opinions that can inform anyone.

Your idea that if one does not accept ”objective morality” then all moral positions are equal and must be accepted. That is in error.

 

[stevevw]

Where do you get the idea that subjective opinions about morality are the same as subjective morality?

The subject's opinions, views, preferences, "likes and dislikes" are what make up subjective morality. Subjective meaning the "subject". In this case for morality, the subject is the human and how they see things.

But as this thread amply demonstrates, some of them are.

I think you have misread what it says. It says that even those moral "anti-realist", in other words, moral subjectivists or relativists don't think moral realists/objectivists are mistaken, confused, or are trying to invoke some theistic reason for being a moral realist. They believe there are good reasons to believe in moral realism and if the question was asked "Are there good reasons to believe in moral realism" over 90% of them would agree that there are good reasons to believe in moral realism.

 

[stevevw]

Your idea that if one does not accept ”objective morality” then all moral positions are equal and must be accepted. That is in error.

Why. If I say that my subjective view that it is OK to have two wives or that it is OK to take from the rich to give to the poor how can someone else apart from their personal view say that I am wrong. Under a subjective system, there is no independent measure of what is right and wrong. All I have to say is that anyone who thinks I am wrong is only expressing their personal opinion. It says nothing about whether my moral position is truthfully wrong so why impose your moral opinion on me.

Just because a bunch of people may agree that it is wrong is a fallacy because they still don't have any independent measure and consensus along cannot be the judge. The consensus of opinion has been shown many times to be wrong and not a good independent measure of what is right and wrong. Humans are subject to corruption and influences that can even affect their judgments as a group. We have sen this in the way some nations impose on others and attack them for personal motives like revenge in the name of being morally righteous.

Any measures claimed to be able to determine what is right like human wellbeing, the common good ect are also subjective and up for interpretation. As humans are fallible I don't trust their ability to determine what is right and wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

What do you mean by this? How can a subjective view from a human transcend a human's view and still be subjective?
I presented the proposition before as here

Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise.
Premise 2: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.
Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational, transcendent source (logically follows from 1, 2, and 3).

Most philosophers agree that morality is a rational exercise so I cannot see any issues with premise 1.

"Most philosophers agree..." is a blatant logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam.

Like I said premise 2 is the most contentious but there are good arguments that support moral realism.

Of course moral realism is not the same as moral objectivity. No wonder you are experiencing contention.

I think most people agree premise 3 that humans cannot know everything there is to know about moral reasoning to be able to know the truth and facts about morality so they cannot be grounded in humans.

And if they don't agree you'll ignore them or misrepresent their arguments.

Once we get to this point the first 3 premises follow logically to premise 4 that if we cannot ground morality in humans and we accept the first 3 premises then it logically follows that morals need to be grounded in a rational and necessary source that knows all the truth and facts about morality. That points to some transcendent entity, not necessarily God.

No, of course not necessarily.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why. If I say that my subjective view that it is OK to have two wives or that it is OK to take from the rich to give to the poor how can someone else apart from their personal view say that I am wrong. Under a subjective system, there is no independent measure of what is right and wrong. All I have to say is that anyone who thinks I am wrong is only expressing their personal opinion. It says nothing about whether my moral position is truthfully wrong so why impose your moral opinion on me.

Just because a bunch of people may agree that it is wrong is a fallacy because they still don't have any independent measure and consensus along cannot be the judge. The consensus of opinion has been shown many times to be wrong and not a good independent measure of what is right and wrong.

The moral standpoint will be considered on its merits, i.e. the arguments for/against.

A moral position that is right because its right (i.e. objective morality) is very suspect.

 

[Speedwell]

Why. If I say that my subjective view that it is OK to have two wives or that it is OK to take from the rich to give to the poor how can someone else apart from their personal view say that I am wrong. Under a subjective system, there is no independent measure of what is right and wrong. All I have to say is that anyone who thinks I am wrong is only expressing their personal opinion. It says nothing about whether my moral position is truthfully wrong so why impose your moral opinion on me.

Just because a bunch of people may agree that it is wrong is a fallacy because they still don't have any independent measure and consensus along cannot be the judge. The consensus of opinion has been shown many times to be wrong and not a good independent measure of what is right and wrong.

What you need to do is to follow the advice of the noted moral philosopher James Cricket and "always let your conscience be your guide."

 

[Speedwell]

The subject's opinions, views, preferences, "likes and dislikes" are what make up subjective morality. Subjective meaning the "subject". In this case for morality, the subject is the human and how they see things.

You are once again trying to conflate moral subjectivity with moral nihilism. You have been so persistent in this that I am beginning to suspect dishonest intent.

I think you have misread what it says. It says that even those moral "anti-realist", in other words, moral subjectivists or relativists don't think moral realists/objectivists are mistaken, confused, or are trying to invoke some theistic reason for being a moral realist. They believe there are good reasons to believe in moral realism and if the question was asked "Are there good reasons to believe in moral realism" over 90% of them would agree that there are good reasons to believe in moral realism.

So there are. But, as you know, moral realism is not the same as moral objectivity.

 

[Strathos]

Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of something that you consider objectively morally correct that increases the amount of pain in the world?

I can: childbirth. One of the most painful experiences humans can go through, but without it our species would go extinct. Also, more people obviously means more pain in the world.

 

[stevevw]

"Most philosophers agree..." is a blatant logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam.

But what if that claim is supported by evidence.

Of course, moral realism is not the same as moral objectivity. No wonder you are experiencing contention.

No I think you are getting the meaning wrong. Moral realism is often used interchangeably with objective morality because they mean the same thing. IE

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.
Moral Realism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy.

Moral realism (also ethical realism or moral Platonism)[1] is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
Moral realism - Wikipedia

And if they don't agree you'll ignore them or misrepresent their arguments.

No, because my support for objective morality is not based on a personal need but rather to find the truth as I believe this is important in anything but especially morality as it means the difference between people being affected by poor judgments about what is right and wrong.

No, of course not necessarily.

Why not necessary. The proposition already shows that moral rationality cannot be grounded in humans as they are incapable of rational thought that is comprehensive and infallible. So it necessitates that morals have to be grounded in a rational source that is unchanging in moral values.

 

[stevevw]

You are once again trying to conflate moral subjectivity with moral nihilism. You have been so persistent in this that I am beginning to suspect dishonest intent.

But how is this explanation of subjective morality wrong. It is what all sources explain as subjective morality. They all say what I am explaining. I don't makeup what I say but rather research it and get it from proper sources. What do you mean by this explanation means moral nihilism. I am not saying that people whose subjective moral position have not moral values. I am saying they should under a subjective moral position if you want to apply the proper meaning.

So there are. But, as you know, moral realism is not the same as moral objectivity.

No its the same I explained this in my previous post with support. Why what difference do you think there is.

 

[stevevw]

What you need to do is to follow the advice of the noted moral philosopher James Cricket and "always let your conscience be your guide."

Yes I agree and that is our moral intuition. Everyone's conscience will have the same moral laws written on them. We are born with them. Anyone who thinks that it is OK to sexually abuse a child or assault a person has something wrong with their conscience. In the extreme example, people can be a psychopath and have no conscience.

Everyone will have their conscience pricked when they do the same wrong for example such as stealing from someone. Like the child with his hand in the cooky jar. It's just that some people learn to ignore their conscience and some can get good at it. Or people can have problems with damage to the brain or personality disorders/mental illness. But for most, there is always a cost of denying the truth. It will affect a person in some way such as their psyche or ability to think rationally.

Even other cultures are the same. Even if no one was taught morality and were on a deserted island. They would know by their conscience that certain things are wrong. If they stole from a tribe member it would be known to be wrong. If they killed or raped a woman it would be known to be wrong.

 

[stevevw]

The moral standpoint will be considered on its merits, i.e. the arguments for/against.

And what are the reference points that decide what is a merit or not and whether an argument is right or not?

A moral position that is right because its right (i.e. objective morality) is very suspect.

Why, rape is wrong because rape is wrong, not because you or I say its wrong. A moral position that uses your or my personal opinion is the suspect position as far as I can see because people are fallible and can be influenced by many things that affect their judgment. Not just that if someone said that it was OK to kill then how can we tell or even take a stand against that view if there is no independent measuring point as to what is right or wrong. Under a subjective or relative moral position, morals change with conditions and environments.

So if there came a time when we ran out of food/resources then killing say the old and weak would become morally OK because it meant that the rest survive. So any moral position can be rationalized as being OK under that system and are today. For example, can a western culture really condemn an African culture that has the moral view that female circumcision is morally OK when that is the African's cultures moral view?

Who is right and who has the right to say the other is wrong and should stop that practice and be more like the west. Isn't that being ethnocentric and objective about morality in that the west morals should be taken up by all? People find themselves in conflict trying to lend support for moral relativism while at the same time wanting to condemn such a barbaric practice. That is how impractical and unreal subjective/relative morality can be.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

Even other cultures are the same. Even if no one was taught morality and were on a deserted island. They would know by their conscience that certain things are wrong. If they stole from a tribe member it would be known to be wrong. If they killed or raped a woman it would be known to be wrong.

That is a baseless claim that has no support in reality.

Quite the contrary as morals differ quite a bit around the world.

 

[VirOptimus]

And what are the reference points that decide what is a merit or not and whether an argument is right or not?

They can be anything, as is very apparent any moral discussion uses differnet arguments.

Why, rape is wrong because rape is wrong, not because you or I say its wrong. A moral position that uses your or my personal opinion is the suspect position as far as I can see because people are fallible and can be influenced by many things that affect their judgment. Not just that if someone said that it was OK to kill then how can we tell or even take a stand against that view if there is no independent measuring point as to what is right or wrong. Under a subjective or relative moral position, morals change with conditions and environments.

You cant use arguments why rape is wrong? How horrible, you would commit rape if you didnt believe in "objective morality"?

So if there came a time when we ran out of food/resources then killing say the old and weak would become morally OK because it meant that the rest survive. So any moral position can be rationalized as being OK under that system and are today. For example, can a western culture really condemn an African culture that has the moral view that female circumcision is morally OK when that is the African's cultures moral view?

Who is right and who has the right to say the other is wrong and should stop that practice and be more like the west. Isn't that being ethnocentric and objective about morality in that the west morals should be taken up by all?

Right is determined by might (as is apparent by definition).

Also, "white mans burden" is sprung out of a belief in "objective morality".

 

[VirOptimus]

I can: childbirth. One of the most painful experiences humans can go through, but without it our species would go extinct. Also, more people obviously means more pain in the world.

Childbirth is not a moral issue.

More people equals more pain is unprovable as we cant quantify pain.

 

[Moral Orel]

The subject's opinions, views, preferences, "likes and dislikes" are what make up subjective morality.

You are once again trying to conflate moral subjectivity with moral nihilism. You have been so persistent in this that I am beginning to suspect dishonest intent.

He's actually right about this one, Speedy. He has defined subjective morality accurately.

 

[Speedwell]

He's actually right about this one, Speedy. He has defined subjective morality accurately.

I'm not sure about that. He has defined "subjective morality" as anything not dictated to us by a transcendent intelligent being. That is not identical to moral nihilism.