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)?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 32 by TheBeardedDude]





[center]A profound lack of understanding concerning morality[/center]

[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

Actually, the statement displays a whole LOT of moral confusion.


It plays on the ambiguous nature of the words "right", "wrong", "personal", "objective" and "opinion".

________________________

Opinions are not objects

What is "right or wrong", if not an opinion?
If the poster presupposes that "right or wrong" exist in an objective way like matter, then our opinions about it don't count.

We can be wrong about "dark matter".... and so on.

The poster is treating morality like an object of some kind.. note the word "object".

I don't see "morality" as an "Object" the same way that a rock is an object.

I see morality as a "human concept", which is a product of our capacity for empathy and reason.

__________________


The poster seems to have a very vague notion as to what an opinion is.

I see that a lot in here.
Apologetics train people to have trouble distinguishing facts from opinions.
________________

And it's really weird, because just a little study of dictionary entries would clear that up. I have a theory that apologists mangle language so much that they actually train people how to use language extremely vaguely.

So much so, in fact, that I often find Christians not able to comprehend logic at all.
I am always copying dictionary entries in these debates for a REASON.

It's like most of these people never heard of dictionaries.

In any case, the comment : "Everybody else on the planet might be wrong since it's just all personal opinion anyway." is an exceptional bit of twisted reasoning.

It's as if the poster never heard of REASONING, either. When it comes to deciding what is morally wrong or right, we need to REASON.

______________________



To say that the poster hasn't thought things through would be an understatement.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 35 by TheBeardedDude]




[center]
Subjective morality vs secular morality[/center]

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.

That makes perfect sense.

The only thing that I objected to was the use of the apologist's term for it. It's playing into their hands. We don't have to fall for their propaganda.

In my view, they make a false dichotomy, and we don't have to fall for that.
I've stopped using the term "subjective" a long time ago... as soon as I started dealing with the "moral argument"... I didn't LIKE to be pigeon holed like that.

They can talk themselves into a corner all they like.
I don't have to go with them.

I use the term "secular morality", instead.

[Blastcat]

[center]
No kidding, what's your personal opinion?[/center]

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

You see what you are doing here?
You are asking him for his PERSONAL OPINION.

That's subjective.

[Bust Nak]

The only thing that I objected to was the use of the apologist's term for it. It's playing into their hands. We don't have to fall for their propaganda.

It's not their term though. Moral subjectivism is a standard term used in philosophy. We, as subjectivists, need not shy away from it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 44 by Bust Nak]



[center]

I really HATE to be wrong.[/center]

The only thing that I objected to was the use of the apologist's term for it. It's playing into their hands. We don't have to fall for their propaganda.

It's not their term though. Moral subjectivism is a standard term used in philosophy. We, as subjectivists, need not shy away from it.

I stand corrected.
I still think that it's a false dichotomy.

I don't believe in what apologists would call "objective morality". It's very ill defined.
I am not a moral subjectivist, either. ( at least, I don't think that I am )

What does that make me?
I'm not too sure... im an "X" kind of moral theorist.

I think I follow humanistic principles.... is that objective or subjective, in your opinion?

I can't tell at all.

[Goose]

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.

To be objectively true it is true regardless of who believes it be true. The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false.

Because I, Bust Nak, disapprove of it.

Why does that make child abuse wrong?

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

Wrong in their opinion that child abuse is immoral.

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

Why is it wrong? All you seem to be able to offer as a justification is your personal disapproval.

The answer is no

Then there’s no reason to believe your statement that it is wrong to abuse children even if many people think it is.

Right as in correct or right as in moral?

Right in their opinion that child abuse is immoral.

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?

Assume you are the last one about to be exterminated. Would what the Nazi’s have done still be immoral? You’ll say yes. I’ll ask why?

No, it would be good.

Let’s be clear here. Are you really saying if we were to evolve to the point that we all came to the conclusion that torturing and killing babies for entertainment was good, it would be good? But you said a moment ago it was wrong to abuse children even if many people think it is. Which is it?

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.

But if society were to evolve to the point where they believed that torturing and killing babies was good your beliefs would be obsolete. So if Trump, for example, wants it to be okay to torture and kill babies for entertainment he just needs to exterminate you and everyone who thinks like you and allow to live everyone who thinks like him. Why would that be wrong?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 46 by Goose]




[center]

It doesn't matter what we think about it, reality is there.[/center]

To be objectively true it is true regardless of who believes it be true. The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false.

If every person on the planet is WRONG OR RIGHT about something, it doesn't affect reality in any way at all.

Reality is there, no matter what our opinions are about it.

What matters is that we have a rigorous METHOD to know fact from fiction, right from wrong.

I don't think that apologists have one of those rigorous methods, and that's why there are so many religious disagreements.

[Goose]

What matters is that we have a rigorous METHOD to know fact from fiction, right from wrong.

Tell me your rigorous method for knowing right from wrong.

[Bust Nak]

To be objectively true it is true regardless of who believes it be true. The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false.

Agreed, no problems here.

Why does that make child abuse wrong?

Don't really know how to answer that other than to say because it's tautological, it logically cannot be any other way - I disapprove of child torture, necessarily implies I disapprove of child torture.

Wrong in their opinion that child abuse is immoral.

That doesn't answer my question. Wrong as in they are immoral for having an opinion that child abuse is immoral; or as incorrect for having an opinion that child abuse is immoral?

Why is it wrong? All you seem to be able to offer as a justification is your personal disapproval.

Exactly, it is still wrong because of my personal disapproval.

Then there’s no reason to believe your statement that it is wrong to abuse children even if many people think it is.

Meh, don't really care if you believe it is wrong to abuse children or not, it's enough that I can force you to refrain from the abuse of children.

Right in their opinion that child abuse is immoral.

That doesn't answer my question. Right as in they are moral for having an opinion that child abuse is immoral; or as in correct for having an opinion that child abuse is immoral?

Assume you are the last one about to be exterminated. Would what the Nazi’s have done still be immoral? You’ll say yes. I’ll ask why?

Yes, it is still immoral. Because I, Bust Nak, disapprove of it.

Let’s be clear here. Are you really saying if we were to evolve to the point that we all came to the conclusion that torturing and killing babies for entertainment was good, it would be good?

Correct. If I, Bust Nak, held the opinion that torturing and killing babies for entertainment was good, it would be good.

But you said a moment ago it was wrong to abuse children even if many people think it is.

Also correct. Because I, Bust Nak, hold the opinion that torturing and killing babies for entertainment was wrong, regardless of how many people think otherwise.

Which is it?

Both. The two statements are complementary.

But if society were to evolve to the point where they believed that torturing and killing babies was good your beliefs would be obsolete.

That wasn't your question though. You didn't ask me if my beliefs would be obsolete or not. You asked me if it was wrong.

So if Trump, for example, wants it to be okay to torture and kill babies for entertainment he just needs to exterminate you and everyone who thinks like you and allow to live everyone who thinks like him. Why would that be wrong?

Again, if I am dead, then I cannot answer that question. Had Trump, wants it to be okay to torture and kill babies for entertainment, exterminated everyone else who thinks like me, it would still be wrong, because I, Bust Nak, disapprove of it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 48 by Goose]

What matters is that we have a rigorous METHOD to know fact from fiction, right from wrong.

[center]Morality = Empathy + reason[/center]

Tell me your rigorous method for knowing right from wrong.

First off, if we aren't using EMPATHY, then our moral theory will not be for the good of people, so that's where I start.

THEN, I use skepticism to know if my reasoning is sound or not.