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)?

[Willum]

[Replying to William]

I can:
Pets.
Concern for children, when you have none.

[William]

[Replying to William]

I can:
Pets.
Concern for children, when you have none.

Please expand on this Willum.

[Goose]

"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.

But isnt your last scenario something like Nazi Germany? They really believed what they were doing to the Jews was right. Was Nazi Germany immoral?

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.

You are inadvertently revealing that you think there are objective moral values. If there are no objective moral values and morals evolve as societies change why the need to fight them and remain vigilant?

"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.

Granted there could be some grey areas with stealing. However, if I were stealing, through an investment scheme, from the very wealthy amounts which wouldnt jeopardize their survival that would be okay right? Especially if the money I was stealing helped my offspring go to better schools thereby allowing them to secure better mates. After all I would just be looking out for my clan assuring my genes are passed on. Whats wrong with that?

[Goose]

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.

If its just a subjective opinion that child abuse is wrong what about, say, someone living in another country who likes abusing children? In his opinion, and the opinion of his country men, abusing children is a good thing to do. Is it okay for him to abuse children then?

[Willum]

[Replying to William]

I can:
Pets.
Concern for children, when you have none.

Please expand on this Willum.

You asked for objectivity and altruism, I would think these two would be self-evident.
But, perhaps instead of pets' I should have said animal rights.
The concern for children of the world.
These are objective in that they are relative to things "outside," a persons' perspective, and altruistic in that people gain no benefit from them, personally.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 23 by Goose]

"But isnt your last scenario something like Nazi Germany? They really believed what they were doing to the Jews was right. Was Nazi Germany immoral? "

And clearly Hitler thought he could simply rewrite morality to fit his vision, but the rest of the world stood up against him and the Nazis. Which is what we should all do when a group stands up to try and push against our morality.

"You are inadvertently revealing that you think there are objective moral values. If there are no objective moral values and morals evolve as societies change why the need to fight them and remain vigilant? "

That does not mean I believe that there are objective moral values. It is also imperative that you know what you are fighting against. Someone advocating for mass genocide? That doesn't fit my idea of morality as a social behavior to benefit society as a whole, so I will fight and resist it. Someone advocating for widespread acceptance of different gender identities? I first stood to fight against something like this, but in order to do so I had to listen to what they were saying and why. Once I listened and realized I agreed with them, I joined their fight.

If your mind is immutable to change because you won't listen to opposing viewpoints, then you will end up stuck in the past.

"Granted there could be some grey areas with stealing. However, if I were stealing, through an investment scheme, from the very wealthy amounts which wouldnt jeopardize their survival that would be okay right? Especially if the money I was stealing helped my offspring go to better schools thereby allowing them to secure better mates. After all I would just be looking out for my clan assuring my genes are passed on. Whats wrong with that?"

You admit that there are grey areas around stealing, and seemingly ignore my example, but then continue to try and push the narrative that it is objectively wrong?

Looking out for your clan in modern society is no longer a feasible scenario with respect to most things since we live in an increasingly globalized world. You don't live in a bubble.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 19 by 2Dbunk]

"To me, objective morality is altruistic and free of bias"

It can't be. It relies upon an immutable moral authority/code that isn't allowed to be judged. Being ignorant of its bias is not the same thing as it being free of bias.

"...as opposed to subjective morality which is bigoted and self-serving."

It can be, like anything else humans and animals do. Which is why we are tasked with considering the moral ramifications of our own actions and words as well as the actions and words of others. So when someone stands up for something that is bigoted and self-serving, it is our moral duty to point this out. It is our moral duty to have a conversations. And it is also our moral duty to listen in case we are on the wrong side of the moral issue.

[Goose]

"But isnt your last scenario something like Nazi Germany? They really believed what they were doing to the Jews was right. Was Nazi Germany immoral? "

And clearly Hitler thought he could simply rewrite morality to fit his vision, but the rest of the world stood up against him and the Nazis. Which is what we should all do when a group stands up to try and push against our morality.

So the Nazis werent morally wrong then? All that really happened was Hitlers version of morality simply emerged at the wrong time in history and they just happened to lose the war. What if Hitler and the Nazis had won the war and exterminated those who opposed the idea of murdering Jews? Would what the Nazis did it still be wrong even if most of the survivors believed it was right?

"You are inadvertently revealing that you think there are objective moral values. If there are no objective moral values and morals evolve as societies change why the need to fight them and remain vigilant? "

That does not mean I believe that there are objective moral values. It is also imperative that you know what you are fighting against. Someone advocating for mass genocide? That doesn't fit my idea of morality as a social behavior to benefit society as a whole, so I will fight and resist it.

So if someone disagrees with your idea of morality you should fight them? Why? What makes you right and them wrong? Or are you saying we fight people simply on the basis they disagree with us?

What if another society comes along and says mass genocide is good. And they manage to find a way to justify how its good for their society as a whole. What makes them wrong and you right?

If your mind is immutable to change because you won't listen to opposing viewpoints, then you will end up stuck in the past.

Great. Now what if a few years down the road society just happens to change to the point where killing babies is okay. Does that mean killing babies is okay?

"Granted there could be some grey areas with stealing. However, if I were stealing, through an investment scheme, from the very wealthy amounts which wouldnt jeopardize their survival that would be okay right? Especially if the money I was stealing helped my offspring go to better schools thereby allowing them to secure better mates. After all I would just be looking out for my clan assuring my genes are passed on. Whats wrong with that?"

You admit that there are grey areas around stealing, and seemingly ignore my example, but then continue to try and push the narrative that it is objectively wrong?

There are some things which we can say are grey areas. Im not disputing that. There are some things, however, which we can say are objectively wrong under any circumstances. Such as torturing and killing babies for entertainment.

Looking out for your clan in modern society is no longer a feasible scenario with respect to most things since we live in an increasingly globalized world. You don't live in a bubble.

Yeah but why is my scenario wrong?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 24 by Goose]



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

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.

If its just a subjective opinion that child abuse is wrong what about, say, someone living in another country who likes abusing children? In his opinion, and the opinion of his country men, abusing children is a good thing to do. Is it okay for him to abuse children then?

________________

Objective or Subjective morality does NOT matter one bit:

• 1. Yes, it's true that there are evil people in the world who might think that child abuse is ok. ( subjective morality or not )
  2. Everyone else on the planet disagrees with him. ( subjective morality or not )
  
  3. Subjective morality or not is the key here. IT DOESN'T MATTER if it's subjective or not.

________________

Most people in the world are very opposed to child abuse. And I really don't think that the subject of objective or subjective morality comes UP in child abuse cases.

If you ARE talking about our world, I think most people agree that it's not nice to hurt kids. Whatever a child abuser thinks about it is meaningless to the rest of us.

Your hypothetical is meaningless.

We know that psychopaths don't have any empathy, but that doesn't stop the rest of us from having it.

The only reason the discussion about objective morality comes up is to pretend that it's a good argument for the existence of the Christian god. We find this stunningly useless idea in the "moral argument".

What matters in morality is that we use empathy and sound judgement, NOT if it's "objective" or not.

It's the same kind of thing we see with the "free will" debate. In order for some theodicy to work, some Christians have figured out that we NEED to have free will... so therefore, it exists.

Sorry, but just because some Christians need something to be true for their argument to work, does NOT mean that it is actually true.

They have to do a little bit better than just the needing it to prove that it's a fact.


Objective morality is Christian propaganda, nothing else.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 28 by Goose]

"So the Nazis werent morally wrong then?"

Not as far as they were concerned.

"All that really happened was Hitlers version of morality simply emerged at the wrong time in history and they just happened to lose the war. "

No. The rest of the world didn't seem to share their view of morality. If it happened today, same thing most likely. But if a Hitler had emerged centuries before, he might have given Ghengis Khan a run for his money.

"What if Hitler and the Nazis had won the war and exterminated those who opposed the idea of murdering Jews? Would what the Nazis did it still be wrong even if most of the survivors believed it was right?"

They would have believed themselves morally right and justified and would probably have considered winning the war a divine sort of agreement. The winner writes history and apparently writes the laws and helps define morality too. You keep looking for a way to make it objectively wrong (what the Nazis did) but you gloss over a very simple observation, the Nazis didn't believe that what they were doing was immoral even if the rest of the world did (and clearly not all of the rest of the world did either. The Japanese and Italians were on board).

"So if someone disagrees with your idea of morality you should fight them? Why? What makes you right and them wrong? Or are you saying we fight people simply on the basis they disagree with us?"

I think you may be taking the word "fight" too literally. When someone disagrees with my moral sense, I listen to them to try and understand what their moral arguments are. I do this because I always assume my morals could be out of date. My morals have evolved appreciably over my lifetime, as does everyone's. You don't actually fight them because you disagree, you only literally fight them when they try to force you act against your moral nature. When they approach you with violence, you can defend yourself and your moral beliefs. (fighting them could be peaceful too, like protesting or writing letters to congressmen)


"What if another society comes along and says mass genocide is good. And they manage to find a way to justify how its good for their society as a whole. What makes them wrong and you right?"

We have already been through this multiple times now. The question isn't WHAT they command as moral or immoral, it is WHY and HOW they justify it. So if they come along and say "we must exterminate all of these people because they are evil!" We should ask to see the demonstrable evidence that this is true and that they aren't normal people like you and I.

"Great. Now what if a few years down the road society just happens to change to the point where killing babies is okay. Does that mean killing babies is okay?"

Don't be absurd by repeating the exact same moral quandary over and over again. I don't want to have to keep repeating myself. The question isn't WHAT they command as moral or immoral, it is WHY and HOW they justify it. So if they come along and say "we must kill all babies!" We should ask why and listen to what the reasons and justifications are. If it is literally nothing more than "kill them just because" then they do not have a valid reason for such a commandment.

"There are some things which we can say are grey areas. Im not disputing that."

Yes, you are. By defining morality as objective, you are saying that EVERY situation and circumstance has an objectively right and wrong answer. This leaves no room for grey areas.

"There are some things, however, which we can say are objectively wrong under any circumstances. Such as torturing and killing babies for entertainment. "

Yes, we can look at certain circumstances and realize that we (as a species) all (for the most part) come to similar conclusions. In the same way that animals that are not closely related but live in similar conditions will evolve similar adaptations (convergent evolution).

But you can't say that it is an objective fact that "torturing and killing babies for entertainment is wrong" when you can look at the animal kingdom and find animals murdering innocent babies and adolescents. Lions for instance. When a male lion takes over a pride, it will kill off the progeny of its former rival to ensure that its competitor's offspring don't oust it later. Is this morally wrong or morally good? I don't think its either of those things since the lions can't rationalize and articulate their reasons, but humans today can. So we should be able to convince someone not to do that because it isn't an appreciable risk they run (to raise another male's offspring) in human society.

"Yeah but why is my scenario wrong?"

Because it doesn't fit my subjective moral code.