Is there any such thing as 'Objective morality'?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is there any such thing as 'Objective morality'?

Objective is defined as: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: Based on observable phenomena; empirical: Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Thus, an 'objective morality' would have to be independent of human minds, emotions, prejudices.

WHERE would such 'morality' be found? In books written, transcribed, translated, edited, modified by humans?

Would 'objective morality' be found in religious organizations, dogma and traditions created by humans?

If it is proposed that one of the thousands of 'gods' provides 'objective morality', how, when, and where was that done (independent of human minds)?

[William]

.

Is there any such thing as 'Objective morality'?

Not sure as of yet.

Objective is defined as: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: Based on observable phenomena; empirical: Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

Okay - so (as a thought experiment) this is to say that removing consciousness from the universe, the universe should still exist as an object?

However since there would now be no consciousness to objectify it (acknowledge its existence) we must assume that it can exist without consciousness, for the sake of the argument.

Thus, an 'objective morality' would have to be independent of human minds, emotions, prejudices.

Yes. It would have to exist without consciousness. It would have to be something which presently exists in the universe - apart from consciousness.

WHERE would such 'morality' be found? In books written, transcribed, translated, edited, modified by humans?

It would be found nowhere because taking consciousness out of the universe then means there is nothing looking and thus nothing to be found.

Would 'objective morality' be found in religious organizations, dogma and traditions created by humans?

These would be found nowhere because taking consciousness out of the universe then means there is nothing looking and thus nothing to be found.

If it is proposed that one of the thousands of 'gods' provides 'objective morality', how, when, and where was that done (independent of human minds)?

Is the assumption here that the only minds which exist in the universe are human and that no other minds can possibly exist?

So far, 'Objective morality' can be found in the actions of human beings.

This is to say that subjectively a human being can observe the existence of objective morality within the actions of human beings.

Also, the same human being can subjectively place morality into the external universe through his/her actions and that other human beings observing the action can see this as objective morality.

Therefore, for the time being I will have to say that 'yes - objective morality does exist' as a property of the universe through consciousness. Consciousness is not independent of this universe (as far as is known), and exists as part of the universe (to what extent we hardly know) and in relation to human society is a requirement to the evolving intelligence of the collective human species mind(s).

[Goose]

.
Is there any such thing as 'Objective morality'?

Do you agree with me that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is wrong?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 12 by Goose]




[center]

Objective ≠ Popular[/center]

.
Is there any such thing as 'Objective morality'?

Do you agree with me that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is wrong?

That question is completely irrelevant to figuring out if morality is objective or not.
Plenty of people agree on which flavor of ice cream to get. Most people prefer "vanilla" for some reason.

Does that mean that vanilla is the objectively good flavor and that others are not?
Just because two people can agree on something does not make it objectively true.


Unless you are saying that popularity is the criteria for what is "objective", of course.

[Goose]

Do you agree with me that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is wrong?

That question is completely irrelevant to figuring out if morality is objective or not.

It's very relevant. Let me put it another way.

Is premise (i) true or false?

(i) Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is wrong.

If you affirm (i) is true the follow up question is, has there ever been a time when (i) was false?

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

No. Fin. /thread






I don't see how morality can exist independent of the human mind any more than I can see how the concept of art can exist outside the human mind. (I am assuming here that the human mind is the only one developed enough to understand these concepts. Another sentient animal or alien species might be capable but to date we do not know of any, so I restrict this to humans until such time it no longer becomes applicable).

I see morality as an altruistic behavior exhibited by a social species that lives in societies. Morality is a set of behaviors that promote cooperation and co-survival for the benefit of the society instead of the benefit to any one individual. As such, morality is a concept that would differ in detail from society to society both spatially and temporally. The reasons for this would be that societies learn as they grow, allowing for better information to be used to inform our morality (concepts of killing other humans for instance have evolved from killing those not in your clan if they are direct competition, to killing only in self-defense. This is one simplified and limited example). Other reasons morality might evolve is that as societies change, new issues and situations arise that couldn't have been predicted. An example of this would be the moral ramifications around stealing people's money through investment scams. Primitive humans would have had no need of any morals related to this as there was nothing comparable for them.

Some societies share similar moral values. Why? Because societies exist largely for the same reason, regardless of where or when they were founded or by whom. Making the similarity of morals from society to society an example of convergent evolution.

The observation that morality differs spatially and temporally, is a great example of how morality CAN'T be objective or fixed.

[Goose]

Other reasons morality might evolve is that as societies change, new issues and situations arise that couldn't have been predicted.

So what happens when a society changes enough that they come to the determination that rape, child abuse, killing and torturing babies, mass genocide, and slavery are moral? Or are those things wrong regardless of what any particular society determines?

An example of this would be the moral ramifications around stealing people's money through investment scams.

Is stealing wrong? Why is stealing wrong?

[TheBeardedDude]

Other reasons morality might evolve is that as societies change, new issues and situations arise that couldn't have been predicted.

So what happens when a society changes enough that they come to the determination that rape, child abuse, killing and torturing babies, mass genocide, and slavery are moral? Or are those things wrong regardless of what any particular society determines?

An example of this would be the moral ramifications around stealing people's money through investment scams.

Is stealing wrong? Why is stealing wrong?

"So what happens when a society changes enough that they come to the determination that rape, child abuse, killing and torturing babies, mass genocide, and slavery are moral? Or are those things wrong regardless of what any particular society determines? "

You mean, what happens when societies like those depicted in the bible develop a set of morals that would be considered immoral by today's standards? They'd be considered immoral unless they had the ability to control how other people thought. A society is a composite of the people within it, so your scenario would require an impossibly unrealistic contortion of society whereby a group of immoral people took control and brainwashed everyone else into complacency.

I guess Trump is trying to do that, but I digress.

What do you do? You stand up against the immoral people trying to implement these things and say "no" and fight them. You don't let their illogical rhetoric win.


Your scenario doesn't highlight the existence of objective moral standards, it highlights the need to remain vigilant with respect to moral quandaries we face in society.

"Is stealing wrong? Why is stealing wrong?

In the context of the society we live in today, it is not acceptable to steal from others in order to survive because it is no longer necessary to do so (we will ignore someone literally stealing food to survive for instance). But perhaps a scenario 20,000 years ago when one human stole from another in order to survive when the theft didn't jeopardize the survival of the other, it's hard for me to say that was immoral. In fact, I wouldn't say that was immoral.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 14 by Goose]



[center]
Objective vs subjective morality: Meaningless discussion[/center]

Is premise (i) true or false?

(i) Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is wrong.

If you affirm (i) is true the follow up question is, has there ever been a time when (i) was false?

First off, let me answer your questions directly, and then I will demonstrate that they are irrelevant as to if morality is objective or not.

1. I agree with the statement. Child abuse is morally wrong.
2. I can't imagine a time when child abuse was ever morally right.

Ok, we got that out of the way.
I happen to agree with most people's OPINION that child abuse is morally wrong. I'm human,I have empathy for others, and I can reason things out.

It's a moral OPINION.

Now, is that opinion based on an objective morality or a subjective morality, or some other kind... that I can't think of right now... say, some X morality?

Does it matter?
I say no, it doesn't matter at all.

It's just WRONG to most sane people.
What does it help to call it objective or subjective?

Does it make it MORE wrong, or more right?
More true or more false?

What's the point of labeling a moral opinion "objective" or "subjective"?

I don't get it.


I think the question is irrelevant to any real moral issue that we face.
So, please, make me CARE if morality is objective or not.

Because I don't.

I do, however, care about the well-being of children.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 15 by TheBeardedDude]

I don't see how morality can exist independent of the human mind any more than I can see how the concept of art can exist outside the human mind. (I am assuming here that the human mind is the only one developed enough to understand these concepts. Another sentient animal or alien species might be capable but to date we do not know of any, so I restrict this to humans until such time it no longer becomes applicable).

I see morality as an altruistic behavior exhibited by a social species that lives in societies. Morality is a set of behaviors that promote cooperation and co-survival for the benefit of the society instead of the benefit to any one individual. As such, morality is a concept that would differ in detail from society to society both spatially and temporally. The reasons for this would be that societies learn as they grow, allowing for better information to be used to inform our morality (concepts of killing other humans for instance have evolved from killing those not in your clan if they are direct competition, to killing only in self-defense. This is one simplified and limited example). Other reasons morality might evolve is that as societies change, new issues and situations arise that couldn't have been predicted. An example of this would be the moral ramifications around stealing people's money through investment scams. Primitive humans would have had no need of any morals related to this as there was nothing comparable for them.

Some societies share similar moral values. Why? Because societies exist largely for the same reason, regardless of where or when they were founded or by whom. Making the similarity of morals from society to society an example of convergent evolution.

The observation that morality differs spatially and temporally, is a great example of how morality CAN'T be objective or fixed.

I don't know that the OP asked whether or not that "objective morality" could evolve. IMO I should think that it could, if we are to consider ourselves civilized. Therefore "fixed" is an obsolete term. TBD, I agreed with your thoughts up until the last paragraph.

To me, objective morality is altruistic and free of bias . . . as opposed to subjective morality which is bigoted and self-serving. Of course this is within the confines of contemporary understanding.

[William]

To me, objective morality is altruistic and free of bias . . . as opposed to subjective morality which is bigoted and self-serving. Of course this is within the confines of contemporary understanding.

Hi 2Dbunk

Can you give an example of an objective morality which is altruistic and free of bias?

Thanks