Where is the Objective Morality?

[Chriliman]

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?

It can reside in you(subjective to you, but objective to others) as well as in others(objective to you, but subjective to the ‘other’ it resides in).

Think of it this way: if you’re actually right then you’re objectively right.

Or this way: objective morality can only exist if a person has/acts on accurate understanding of reality.

 

[Astrid]

It can reside in you(subjective to you, but objective to others) as well as in others(objective to you, but subjective to the ‘other’ it resides in).

Think of it this way: if you’re actually right then you’re objectively right.

Or this way: objective morality can only exist if a person has/acts on accurate understanding of reality.

Accurate understanding of reality.
And that causes something to exist.

You sure about this? Do you believe you have an
" accurate understanding of reality"?

 

[Chriliman]

Accurate understanding of reality.
And that causes something to exist.

You sure about this? Do you believe you have an
" accurate understanding of reality"?

In certain cases, yes, I think I can have an accurate understanding of reality(maybe not all aspects of reality, but the aspects that I’m focused on at any given moment).

Do you think it’s impossible to accurately understand reality?

 

[Astrid]

In certain cases, yes, I think I can have an accurate understanding of reality(maybe not all aspects of reality, but the aspects that I’m focused on at any given moment).

Do you think it’s impossible to accurately understand reality?

Probably impossible, imo.

What accurate reading of reality gives you objective
morality? ( and how you know)

 

[Chriliman]

Probably impossible, imo.

What accurate reading of reality gives you objective
morality? ( and how you know)

That depends on what circumstance I’m trying to understand and whether my actions based on that understanding provides the expected results.

 

[Astrid]

That depends on what circumstance I’m trying to understand and whether my actions based on that understanding provides the expected results.

Never mind

 

[Chriliman]

Never mind

Ok

 

[stevevw]

Maybe, and maybe too cute by one half

Oh gee shucks,

 

[stevevw]

This is known as the "Argument from Consequences" fallacy. You're saying, "Wouldn't it be a bummer if our moral values weren't actually valuable? And wouldn't it be a bummer if there was no actual justice? It can't be a bummer, so it must be true". It's fallacious reasoning and doesn't even count as evidence.

I think its more than that. We don't just reasoned these trutrhs based on being true by default. They are values in themselves and stand independent of other things that give them value.

We actually live these truths and thats why we are here to realize their value. Though they are abstract values they are made real in our lives and they are necessary for us to live and be human. Its not rocket science. We all know these truths and live by these truths.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- We all know these truths and live by these truths.

”We all” dont know them, and ”we all” dont live by them.

See how morality is different through times, space and from idividual to individual.

 

[stevevw]

”We all” dont know them, and ”we all” dont live by them.

How do you know we don't all know morals. Research shows that we are born with the basic knowledge of morality.

The Moral Life of Babies
It turns out instead that the right theory of our moral lives has two parts. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
The Moral Life of Babies

I am not saying we all live by morals. I am saying that as we are all born with the basics of morality this is reflected in the way we live. We don't have to be moral as we have free will but the fact that we make morality normative and create laws and Rights around morals we actually create moral reality by doing this.

If morality is only relative/subjective then by doing this we are contradicting ourselves by forcing everyone to conform to these norms as the very idea of relativism and subjectivism is that there are no moral truth that everyone can be forced to conform with. But rather everyone has their own moral truth.

So its the fact that we act as hostile witnesses against subjective morality and become crown witnesses for moral truths which must have some bearing on what is morally real or not.

all know right from wrong and this grows over time. We live
See how morality is different through times, space and from idividual to individual.

BUt this arguement from moral difference or disagreement is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that because people disagree or that morals have changed means there is no moral truths. Let me ask you do you think morality has changed for the better.

 

[VirOptimus]

How do you know we don't all know morals. Research shows that we are born with the basic knowledge of morality.

I know because I dont know "objective morals".

The Moral Life of Babies
It turns out instead that the right theory of our moral lives has two parts. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
The Moral Life of Babies

I am not saying we all live by morals. I am saying that as we are all born with the basics of morality this is reflected in the way we live. We don't have to be moral as we have free will but the fact that we make morality normative and create laws and Rights around morals we actually create moral reality by doing this.

If morality is only relative/subjective then by doing this we are contradicting ourselves by forcing everyone to conform to these norms as the very idea of relativism and subjectivism is that there are no moral truth that everyone can be forced to conform with. But rather everyone has their own moral truth.

So its the fact that we act as hostile witnesses against subjective morality and become crown witnesses for moral truths which must have some bearing on what is morlay real or not.

BUt this arguement from moral difference or disagreement is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that because people disagree or that morals have changed means there is no moral truths. Let me ask you do you think morality has changed for the better.

You again dont understand the very basics what non-objective (or objective for that matter) morality entails.

 

[stevevw]

I know because I dont know "objective morals".



You again dont understand the very basics what non-objective (or objective for that matter) morality entails.

I am responding to your claim that we don't know right and wrong morally. I just provided evdience that we do.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am responding to your claim that we don't know right and wrong morally. I just provided evdience that we do.

Your "evidence" only say that very young people have moral stances (which is to be expected as humans are moral agents).

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[stevevw]

Your "evidence" only say that very young people have moral stances (which is to be expected as humans are moral agents).

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No the research shows that babies as young as 3 months have the moral basics. They concluded that we are born with moral knowledge as a result as at that young age it is too early to have been taught.

There is mounting scientific evidence that this may not be true and that “some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.”
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html

Morality is not just something that people learn, it is something we are all born with. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
The Moral Life of Babies

 

[VirOptimus]

No the research shows that babies as young as 3 months have the moral basics. They concluded that we are born with moral knowledge as a result as at that young age it is too early to have been taught.

There is mounting scientific evidence that this may not be true and that “some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.”
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
The Moral Life of Babies

Yes, thats what I said, young people have moral stances. It really doesnt support your imagined ”points”.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, thats what I said, young people have moral stances. It really doesnt support your imagined ”points”.

It actually supports my point. I said that we make objective morality a reality in our world and the fact that we are born with moral knowledge is why we live out that reality.

I don't know why you are emphazing young people like moral knowledge disappears when older. This moral knowledge we are born with doesn't disappear. It is the basis for right and wrong much the same as adults have. That is why there is a core set of morals truths that we all know and acknowledge through religion, socialization, culture and with Human Rights, laws and norms.

As the article says the knowledge of right and wrong is bred to the bone. Its a part of us and we cannot help but live like these core morals are like laws that govern us morally.

 

[VirOptimus]

It actually supports my point. I said that we make objective morality a reality in our world and the fact that we are born with moral knowledge is why we live out that reality.

I don't know why you are emphazing young people like moral knowledge disappears when older. This moral knowledge we are born with doesn't disappear. It is the basis for right and wrong much the same as adults have. That is why there is a core set of morals truths that we all know and acknowledge through religion, socialization, culture and with Human Rights, laws and norms.

As the article says the knowledge of right and wrong is bred to the bone. Its a part of us and we cannot help but live like these core morals are like laws that govern us morally.

I have never said people stop having moral stances, quite the contrary. An moral agent will always have a moral stance.

It in no way support the notion of an objective morality.

 

[stevevw]

I have never said people stop having moral stances, quite the contrary. An moral agent will always have a moral stance.

Then why emphaxise young people.

It in no way support the notion of an objective morality.

But how can anyone take a moral stance without relying on some objective basis. Opinions, preferences and feelings are hardly moral stances and it carries little weight as a moral declaration. A stance is reasoned and therefore in morality its reasoning the best stance to take. Reasoning requires rational thinking and not subjective thinking.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why emphaxise young people.

But how can anyone take a moral stance without relying on some objective basis. Opinions, preferences and feelings are hardly moral stances and it carries little weight as a moral declaration. A stance is reasoned and therefore in morality its reasoning the best stance to take. Reasoning requires rational thinking and not subjective thinking.

You dont seem to understand what a moral stance is.