Where is the Objective Morality?

Bradskii said:

Thank you. So it seems the answer is...we don't know and can never know. It will always be a matter of debate between people as to what is right.

Which kinda makes it subjective, don't you think..?

Click to expand...

well ... depends on what base one is coming from in the first place ... if Jesus is the base then there is absolute morality .... if not then each set their own morality and that can be based on many things .... seems to create confusion (uncertainty) ;o) Personally, am glad to be free of it ;o)

I believe God as the creator .... mankind originally created in His image (absolute morality) ... Jesus' life, how He lived (God in the flesh - example of absolute morality on earth) and a vestige of that original image remains in everyone to one degree or another.

Found this ....

Is morality objective or subjective?

Argument for Humans decide actions based on what they call 'morality'. All of human psychology is an objective part of the Universe. Therefore morality is an objective part of the Universe. Objection ... A decision made based on human psychology is by definition a subjective decision

I do see the confusion LOL

TheWhat? said:

If you're going to tell me that a vacuum is material I think we have a semantics problem. 'Material' does not mean the thing that you're using it for, which is basically "everything that is."

Click to expand...

Semantics might indeed be the issue. Material most certainly does mean all physical aspects of our universe and everything which arises from it.

Materialism - Wikipedia

TheWhat? said:

Eliminative materialism, where we started, is unable to cope with emergent phenomena or properties of systems not shared by the component parts of those systems.

Grinding a marble figure to powder does not prove that there was no likeness of a person to begin with. It doesn't prove that light or shadow are not real phenomena once, in our enclosed environment, all of the light energy has been converted and no light is visible. Nor does it eliminate the laws that govern such phenomena, etc, etc.

It's like an empirical solipsism: doubt everything, doubt the observations, and the semantics of the findings -- usually as long as it is convenient to do so, or until you're willing to take the full plunge into solipsism.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how this shows reality to be abstract? Simply because we perceive in the abstract does not render all of reality abstract.

Belk said:

I fail to see how this shows reality to be abstract? Simply because we perceive in the abstract does not render all of reality abstract.

Click to expand...

I won't deny that physical substance exists as part of reality, even most of what we perceive, just that with science advancing down to the QM level, matter appears to be an emergent phenomenon, the product of abstract laws or forces, at some level. The bounds of reality beneath or beyond material aren't really well defined.

Bradskii said:

I would say that all mothers will love their babies. But you're still avoiding the question. How do we know who, out of the true believers who hold opposing views, are correct?

Click to expand...

I already told you how in another post (the principle of love others as yourself). What if all the true believers only seem to have opposing views because some are concerned about being perceived as hypocritically condemning anyone for sin, and others are concerned about being perceived as hypocritically condoning sin? So if the question is fundamentally asking if getting an abortion is objectively a moral action, then I've answered the very point of the question. I'm saying that whoever believes the Mother will love the baby if born, is speaking from an objective view, by which I mean to convey that, in this particular way, the objective view is not going to see abortion as a moral endeavor.

It seems to me that the best counter narrative would be if for some reason the woman doesn't want to bring a baby into a cruel world. But that reasoning would seem to me, to be based upon fear, and would be difficult to qualify as being objective.

And just a heads up on this. I've been asking the same question on different threads to 4 or 5 members over the last week or so. In all cases, including this one, the question has been asked multiple times. And everyone has done their best to avoid giving an answer. I can only ask so many times. I have already concluded that there is no answer. There can be no other conclusion.

Click to expand...

I gave a direct answer. You need to show why/how it's not an objective view. What part of loving others as one's self is violated by what I said? Where is the hypocrisy?

childeye 2 said:

I'm saying that whoever believes the Mother will love the baby if born, is speaking from an objective view, which obviously means that in this particular way, the objective view is not going to see abortion as a moral endeavor.

Click to expand...

That's simply giving your view on the matter. If someone equally religious has a different view then simply saying 'they are wrong' is something of a waste of time. They will say exactly the same thing - that they are right and you are wrong.

To a dissinterested person, there seems to be no way possible to differentiate between two religious people equally sure that they are in touch with what God will alllw who hold entirely different views on what is objectively wrong. Either one of them is wrong or they are both wrong in thinking their position is objective. The latter is obviously the case.

TheWhat? said:

I won't deny that physical substance exists as part of reality, even most of what we perceive, just that with science advancing down to the QM level, matter appears to be an emergent phenomenon, the product of abstract laws or forces, at some level. The bounds of reality beneath or beyond material aren't really well defined.

Click to expand...

From what I understand matter is the flip side of energy. I am unaware of anyone claiming QM exists at some "abstract" level. I don't even know what that means give the definition of abstract.

As for reality not being well defined beyond the material does that not rather contradict your claims of reality being abstract?

Belk said:

From what I understand matter is the flip side of energy. I am unaware of anyone claiming QM exists at some "abstract" level. I don't even know what that means give the definition of abstract.

As for reality not being well defined beyond the material does that not rather contradict your claims of reality being abstract?

Click to expand...

Afaik it's theoretical and not yet proven that a possible explanation for matter rests on tightly curled, additional dimensions. Whatever the case, atoms were at one time thought to be atomic. They obviously aren't, and if there is no true atomic unit of matter, which is itself matter, then whatever it is emerging from is not material.

Here's the definition of abstract: withdrawn or separated from material objects or practical matters

In other words, even though not all mysteries are yet solved, it appears one has to begin speaking of the immaterial to describe the origin of material.

TheWhat? said:

Afaik it's theoretical and not yet proven that a possible explanation for matter rests on tightly curled, additional dimensions.

Click to expand...

I doubt it even raises to the level of hypothesis let alone theory.

IceJad said:

Whatever the case, atoms were at one time thought to be atomic. They obviously aren't, and if there is no true atomic unit of matter, which is itself matter, then whatever it is emerging from is not material.

Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with the idea that atoms are not atomic.

TheWhat? said:

Here's the definition of abstract: withdrawn or separated from material objects or practical matters

Click to expand...

Why are you using an entomology dictionary?


ab·stract


adjective
adjective: abstract

1. 1.
   existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

TheWhat? said:

In other words, even though not all mysteries are yet solved, it appears one has to begin speaking of the immaterial to describe the origin of material.

Click to expand...

It does not appear to me that way at all. Everything I have ever heard about QM there is nothing abstract about it. While it is nonsensical to standard understanding it is very much rooted in a material reality.

Bradskii said:

That's simply giving your view on the matter. If someone equally religious has a different view then simply saying 'they are wrong' is something of a waste of time. They will say exactly the same thing - that they are right and you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Well yes I'm giving my view and claiming objectivity, because I see no hypocrisy in my reasoning, which therefore also fulfills love others as yourself. And of course it's possible someone might disagree, but I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy will not love the baby if born, since that argument would be based on a negative prejudice. In fact I know of many such cases firsthand where women went through with the pregnancy and all were eventually glad that they did, despite much hardship.

Respectfully, I think it's a mistake to limit this issue to what you see as for "religious" people. We're all saying what we think is moral and immoral every time we decide what amounts to right and wrong behavior towards others. Do you count yourself unqualified to have an objective moral view?

To a dissinterested person, there seems to be no way possible to differentiate between two religious people equally sure that they are in touch with what God will alllw who hold entirely different views on what is objectively wrong. Either one of them is wrong or they are both wrong in thinking their position is objective. The latter is obviously the case.

Click to expand...

Respectfully that's a conclusion with no basis in fact. How exactly is believing a woman will love the baby once born, objectively wrong? Have you asked others if they think it's objectively wrong? If I may remark, you said yourself that you felt that a Mother would love her baby. I assume that you understand that most women get abortions out of a fear of some sort?

Moreover, cynicism is self fulfilling. Essentially you're inferring that there must be no objective morality based on the arbitrary assertion that since either one is wrong or both are wrong, the latter is "obviously the case". Why/How exactly is it obvious that not one could be right? Could it be that you have an impetus to deny that there's a moral truth that all people eventually learn of?

Also, you need to account for semantics in your reasoning. There's a distinction to be made between moral objectivity and what God will allow depending on the context. For example, Jesus taught that the Father of the prodigal son allowed his son to leave and sin aplenty just so as to learn that his Father was right all along. But the Father did not condemn nor denounce his wayward son, but upon his return welcomed him back with open arms.

childeye 2 said:

If I may remark, you said yourself that you felt that a Mother would love her baby. I assume that you understand that most women get abortions out of a fear of some sort?

Click to expand...

Whether women have them or not or why they have them is up to them. It's a personal decision (and therefore a subjective decision). Whether one considers it to be objectively wrong or not depends on what denomination or what religion one is. Many of those of the Jewish faith do not consider an early abortion to be morally wrong. You'd say it would be objectively wrong. And there is no-one who can do anything except claim they are right according to their own particular view.

TheWhat? said:

I find this slightly confusing. Can you be certain at all that your existence as an agent is objective fact?

Click to expand...

As I said, I dont think "objective" is a meaningful term.

durangodawood said:

I do too.

But precision is not the only value. There's very little in language where the map corresponds precisely to the territory. If you set the bar that high, theres hardly anything you can talk about.

Click to expand...

That is very true, but I have no problem getting my points across without ever using objective/subjective (unless it is a debate about that very subject like here).

VirOptimus said:

For me objective/subjective is meanigless terms as they pre-suposes an objective agent, ie god(s).

Click to expand...

As if there are no absolutes. How convenient.

HIM said:

As if there are no absolutes. How convenient.

Click to expand...

?

Belk said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree with the idea that atoms are not atomic.

Click to expand...

'Atom' basically means "indivisible unit." They were initially thought to be, but as it turns out atoms are divisible.

Belk said:

Why are you using an entomology dictionary?

Click to expand...

Because, divorced from the origin of terms, I find that popular consensus has a tendency to rest upon misunderstanding and fallacious assumptions.

Bradskii said:

Whether women have them or not or why they have them is up to them. It's a personal decision (and therefore a subjective decision).

Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment here, even though I actually do care about what women go through. But as pertains to the objective view of morality, I would point out what is obvious through observation, and that is that no reasonable person would question the morality/immorality of a woman who wants to have a baby.

Whether one considers it to be objectively wrong or not depends on what denomination or what religion one is.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's a viable criteria to qualify an objective view. It sounds like legalism and I don't see how legalism is objective when people are bound to make mistakes?

Many of those of the Jewish faith do not consider an early abortion to be morally wrong.

Click to expand...

But did anyone ask them if they believe the mother will Love the baby if it is born, and subsequently consider that she someday could be glad and thankful she didn't get an abortion? Perhaps they see it as amoral rather than immoral in a legalistic sense.

If you're looking at the issue as an either/or proposition then I would think that the reason why a person gets an abortion is probably not being factored in to the determination of whether it's immoral or even moral. Isn't a case by case examination necessary to have an objective view? I believe it's possible a woman can someday regret having an abortion and that should be factored in. I believe the objective view would factor in the reasons why a person gets an abortion before determining the right and wrong of it. Love others as yourself must account for ignorance/innocence. I mean ask a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy if she regrets getting pregnant and I think she will say yes, objectively speaking. That doesn't necessarily make her mistake immoral.

The bottom line here is I don't believe the objective view is legalistic in it's deliberation.

You'd say it would be objectively wrong.

Click to expand...

To be clear I said it would be wrong to have an abortion because I believe the woman will love the baby if it is born. I believe that meets the criteria of an objective view (no negative prejudice, no hypocrisy, love others as yourself.).

And there is no-one who can do anything except claim they are right according to their own particular view.

Click to expand...

So you say, and I understand that it seems futile in some degree. But I can't in all sincerity believe it is utterly futile, which is why I pointed out the obvious that no reasonable person questions whether it's moral/immoral for a woman to want to have a baby. I submit that it's unreasonable to expect proof of an objective view yet not have any criteria to even make a determination.

durangodawood said:

Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.

I simply want to know where it is.

If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?

Click to expand...

It's in the relationship between the mind and reality. All knowledge is. It doesn't exist in the mind apart from reality nor in reality apart from the mind. It's the identification of facts by a mind. It's the grasp of objects by a subject by rational means. That's objectivity in a nutshell.

The happy Objectivist said:

It's the identification of facts by a mind.

Click to expand...

I forget, are you one who claims morality is objective?

If so, what are the facts apprehended about morality? How does one determine that the apprehended "moral thing " is a fact?

Tinker Grey said:

I forget, are you one who claims morality is objective?

If so, what are the facts apprehended about morality? How does one determine that the apprehended "moral thing " is a fact?

Click to expand...

I would say unconditional Love is the Spirit of morality.