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)?

[Goose]

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 )

But why is child abuse wrong?

2. Everyone else on the planet disagrees with him. ( subjective morality or not )

Everybody else on the planet might be wrong since it's just all personal opinion anyway. And in my example he's not alone. In my scenario he has a whole country of people behind him who believe child abuse is good. So it's okay for him then because his whole society holds the opinion abusing children is a good thing to do. Or is still wrong to abuse children even if many people think it is?

3. Subjective morality or not is the key here. IT DOESN'T MATTER if it's subjective or not.[/i]

The question isn't does it matter. The question is are there objective moral values?

Most people in the world are very opposed to child abuse.

But why are they right?

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 31 by Goose]

"Everybody else on the planet might be wrong since it's just all personal opinion anyway."

That's not what we are saying. That is a straw man

[tfvespasianus]

It’s difficult for me to understand the viewpoint of equating subjectivity with something like ‘wholly useless’ or ‘incoherent to the point of meaningless’. If morality is subjective it is so in the same way art, love, and justice are and these abstract concepts are some of the highest in the human condition. That is, we can agree that a work of literature may be great, but there is no ‘objective’ criteria for a such a determination. Nonetheless, we don’t then say there is no such thing as great literature (i.e. there is no such thing as a great work of literature because it is subjective). Moreover, there are various approaches to ethics (e.g. various iterations of Utilitarianism, Kantian approaches involving the Categorical Imperative, etc.) that we discuss and find coherent and workable each with its own problems and strengths, but this endeavor is not the equivalent to simple caprice. When we think about moral problems we do bring our sentiments, reasoning, and critical thought to the table if we do so seriously.

Take care,
TFV

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 30 by TheBeardedDude]




[center]

Objective morality vs Subjective morality = False Dichotomy?[/center]

"Yeah but why is my scenario wrong?"

Because it doesn't fit my subjective moral code.

I don't think that using the word "subjective" for your moral code is a good idea:

• 
  1. I think it plays to what I consider a false dichotomy the apologists make between objective and subjective morality. I question that dichotomy. Lets say that there IS no such thing as an "objective morality"? What then? All morality is subjective? What then? Who CARES?
  2. I really miss the point of the discussion, OTHER than refuting the unsubstantiated claim that objective morality exists. We don't have to call morality objective OR subjective. I think what we REALLY have is "human" morality.
  3. Using the word "subjective" is very confusing.. people get it mixed up with "relative", or "amoral" and so on.
  4. The BIG elephant in the room is that people who say that morality is objective are USUALLY religious people. People who say that their morality is "subjective" are USUALLY non-theists. So, what is the TRUE dichotomy here?
  5. Perhaps we could use "secular morality" as opposed to "religiously motivated morality".

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 34 by Blastcat]

I'll clarify then, by subjective morality I mean that my moral code is defined not by an arbitrary "objective" or "fixed" moral code and that instead I consider the moral ramifications of situations as they appear. My morality is not defined by laws nor are they defined by religion.

[tfvespasianus]

Additionally, it has always struck me as odd positing an ‘objective’ morality in that, although it would seem counter-intuitive, such a stance is often more problematic than the alternative. This is because the source of the objective morality is often an omnipotent god. Under this scenario, the god is the ultimate source of morality supplying the rules for what is and isn’t moral. However, under this framework, are the moral laws supplied ‘good’ because the god has superior knowledge and thus is able to discern right from wrong? If so, the god is appealing to something ‘higher’ than itself in that the god is using standards (logic/reasoning) that his determinations are subject to. If it is not the case that the god is bound by reasoning for the source of legitimacy of his pronouncements, then the moral laws are simply fiats. That is, whatever has been determined to be ‘good’ by the god is simply so based upon the assertion. This would be a real case of an arbitrary morality.

Take care,
TFV

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 33 by tfvespasianus]



[center]

Objective vs Subjective = Religious propaganda?[/center]

It’s difficult for me to understand the viewpoint of equating subjectivity with something like ‘wholly useless’ or ‘incoherent to the point of meaningless’.

That's why I reject using the word "subjective" when it comes to morality. It really confuses things, and doesn't really add to our moral advancement.

And, boy oh boy, does this world EVER need moral advancement !!

If morality is subjective it is so in the same way art, love, and justice are and these abstract concepts are some of the highest in the human condition.

That's right.
We "like" one aesthetic object more than another.

In art, we don't even have to give a reason.. I like Pink Floyd, I don't like Punk....
So what?

Do I have to give a reason?
Not at all... aesthetic tastes are NOT really disputable.

Moral questions are HIGHLY disputable, and it's VITAL that we reach agreements.
Oh by they way, we usually DO reach moral agreements.

[center]
apologists treat morality as aesthetic objects[/center]


I don't treat morality that way.
My moral theory demands empathy and reason.

Religious morality demands that we obey to some interpretation of an old text.
I think that's what apologists REALLY mean by "objective morality".

Let's not be fooled by the propaganda, which is very effective.

That is, we can agree that a work of literature may be great, but there is no ‘objective’ criteria for a such a determination.

If I define the word "objective" in a very clever way, I can make a case against that.
I have to create "objective" criteria.

There is nothing at all that can stop me from having what i consider objective criteria that I have created. Art schools are like that. You can actually FAIL at art school.

They have their ( perhaps arbitrary but still ) OBJECTIVE criteria.

Nonetheless, we don’t then say there is no such thing as great literature (i.e. there is no such thing as a great work of literature because it is subjective).

I think that we have "objective criteria" for what constitutes "great art".
It's playing on the meaning of the word "objective" a little bit, but still. This WHOLE discussion rests upon what definitions we want to accept for "objective" and "subjective". It's semantics and nothing more.

The word "objective", if applied to art or to morality is too vague to be very meaningful. And consequently, so is using the word "subjective".


[center]
what is subjective TO ONE person might be objective to any other person[/center]

Moreover, there are various approaches to ethics (e.g. various iterations of Utilitarianism, Kantian approaches involving the Categorical Imperative, etc.) that we discuss and find coherent and workable each with its own problems and strengths, but this endeavor is not the equivalent to simple caprice.

I totally agree.


[center]
apologists are very quick to muddy the water between "subjective" and "capricious" [/center]

When we think about moral problems we do bring our sentiments, reasoning, and critical thought to the table if we do so seriously.

Going by religiously motivated morality is to give up a bit of both empathy and reason. What matters most to religious morality is the promulgation of the religion. That's the worst kind of "morality" that I can think of.

I think that ISIS uses that kind.

[Goose]

"So the Nazi’s weren’t morally wrong then?"
Not as far as they were concerned.

No kidding. I’m asking you from your perspective. Were they morally wrong? If they weren’t wrong why fight them?

"All that really happened was Hitler’s 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.

Or if Hitler had emerged centuries from now when our morality has changed to believe mass genocide can be justified.

"What if Hitler and the Nazis’ had won the war and exterminated those who opposed the idea of murdering Jews? Would what the Nazi’s 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).

I don't think I've glossed over this. In fact I made this point that the Nazi's believed what they were doing was right.

And you aren't answering the question. If the Nazi’s had won the war and exterminated the opposition would what they did, still be wrong?

"What if another society comes along and says mass genocide is good. And they manage to find a way to justify how it’s 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.

The Nazi’s believed the Jews were evil and provided evidence to the German people. What about all the thousands of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles in prison? We have demonstrable evidence they are evil. Would it be moral to just kill them all? Why not? So if we have reason to think someone is evil or different than us, we have justifiable reason to commit mass genocide? Or is mass genocide wrong regardless of the reason?

"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.

So all one needs is a justifiable reason to kill babies. Once one has that, killing babies is good. Got it.

"There are some things which we can say are grey areas. I’m 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.

No I’m not. It’s not necessary for all situations to have an objective right and wrong answer for there to objective moral values.

"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 if we were to evolve to the point that we all came to the conclusion that torturing and killing babies was good, would it still be wrong?

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.

Okay so it’s not wrong or right for lions to torture and kill babies because they can’t rationalize and articulate their reasons. But as you say humans can. So at what time would it be okay for humans to torture and kill babies for entertainment? Or is that simply wrong no matter the circumstances?

"Yeah but why is my scenario wrong?"

Because it doesn't fit my subjective moral code.

Why is your code right?

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 38 by Goose]

I'm not going to continue to engage with someone who employs such dishonest tactics as straw manning me. You continue to attempt to put words in my mouth by oversimplifying the explicit statements and explanations I provide.

[Bust Nak]

Is there any such thing as 'Objective morality'?

No, there is no such thing because there cannot be such things. Morality is about value judgement of good and evil, of right and wrong. Value judgement implies subjectivity. Objective subjectivity is internally contradictory and cannot exist the same way married bachelor cannot exist.

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

The definition of objective does not restrict this to human minds, to be objective something has to be external to minds in general. That includes the minds of the thousands of proposed deities.

But why is child abuse wrong?

Because I, Bust Nak, disapprove of it.

Everybody else on the planet might be wrong since it's just all personal opinion anyway.

By wrong did you mean immoral or incorrect? You need to make it clear when the context is morality.

In my scenario he has a whole country of people behind him who believe child abuse is good. So it's okay for him then because his whole society holds the opinion abusing children is a good thing to do. Or is still wrong to abuse children even if many people think it is?

It is still wrong to abuse children even if many people think it is.

The question is are there objective moral values?

The answer is no.

But why are they right?

Right as in correct or right as in moral?

If the Nazi’s had won the war and exterminated the opposition would what they did, still be wrong?

The question is malformed, if they have exterminated me, I wouldn't be around to answer your question. Did you meant to ask exterminated the opposition except for me?

But if we were to evolve to the point that we all came to the conclusion that torturing and killing babies was good, would it still be wrong?

No, it would be good.

So at what time would it be okay for humans to torture and kill babies for entertainment? Or is that simply wrong no matter the circumstances?

Depends on exactly what you mean by that question, are you after philosophical answers or specifics? Philosophically, it would be okay for humans to torture and kill babies for entertainment when I, Bust Nak, approve of it. Specifically, I would not approve of it ever.