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]

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.

You have no grounds upon which to argue child torture is wrong aside from simply asserting it then. In short, you have no way to justify it. So anyone who approves of child torture is morally right because they approve of child torture.

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?

Is there a meaningful difference? It’s not even necessary to answer this question since you can’t offer any justification for thinking child torture is morally wrong.

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

That doesn’t make it wrong for Bob though. That only makes it wrong for you. Bob thinks it’s good to torture children because he thinks it’s good.

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.

But why would you want to stop Bob from abusing children? Why is your belief right and his wrong? And by the way, Bob lives in a place where everybody else believes child abuse is good too. So why impose your morality on Bob’s society by trying to force him to stop? After all what does it matter? We are all just highly evolved bacteria anyway.

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

So what if you disprove? Who are you to say the Nazi’s were immoral?

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

Even if everyone else held the opinion it was bad, it would still be good though because you held that opinion, right? Why were the Nazi’s immoral again?

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.

Until your opinion changes. I know you say it never will. But can you guarantee that it won’t?

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.

So what? You’d be the only one left and who are you to disapprove anyway?

[Goose]

[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.

Okay let's start there. Empathy is heavily dependant one's personal feelings. Are you saying one's "feelings" are part of a rigorous method for determining right from wrong?

[William]

[Replying to post 51 by Goose]

I think your reasoning here is far too black and white Goose.

If the question is;

Is there any such thing as 'Objective morality'?

Then we have to look to see where morality exists within the external universe, and we don't have to look far.

Your argument is more about 'who's definition of morality is right?'

This in itself does not mean that morality is something which does not exist in the universe...(my post about this here [linky] so you have a reference point from my position in the argument)

Not that I disagree it shouldn't be part of the discussion, but that your reasoning about this is faulty.

I will explian:

The evolution of human consciousness brings with it social development and an asepct of that equates to morality.

Morality is also involved with social law and order.

Essentially that can be referred to as Human Morality, and therein your argument is that some human societies may like to do things which other human societies find immoral, and therefore 'who is to say which is moral and which is not'. Or said another way, 'which is proven better for society and which has not.'

Then we can branch out again on arguing the definition of 'better' and 'worse'.

But essentially we should see in this that all the branching out into argument doesn't actually go anywhere useful (and perhaps is somehow immoral for that?).

Actual useful Morals can be defined as "what is good for one?" and in relation to what is good for one, "what is good for all?"

At that rate it could then be argued that there are no human societies which are morally correct enough at present, in which to give a clear indication of that.

Therefore, social morality at least is not something which can be called 'objective morality' because there is no one type of social morality which at present displays any characteristics which sets it apart from any other types of social morality. Certainly not enough to be called 'morality' as a whole...although certainly parts of it could contain actual morality...if only morality could be actually defined).

So if your argument is focused upon defining morality, well and good, because it has to be defined (in a group setting) in order for it to even be discussed rationally.

So I understand where you are coming from, and the fault I see in this approach is that it - at least appears - to assume that Objective Morality does exist, but cannot be properly identified.

Clue: Note in the OP Zzyzx defines 'objective' and makes no attempt to define morality.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 52 by Goose]



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

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.

Okay let's start there. Empathy is heavily dependant one's personal feelings. Are you saying one's "feelings" are part of a rigorous method for determining right from wrong?

Empathy is a feeling, yes.
If I don't have empathy, my moral reasoning will be WRONG.

I wouldn't ask a psychopath to establish laws, for example. He doesn't have any empathy. If anything, morality is about treating others WELL. And that usually means fairly. We can't do that if we aren't able to imagine what the other person's experience is like and react to that.

But of course, we need more than our feelings for a rigorous method, don't we?

[Bust Nak]

You have no grounds upon which to argue child torture is wrong aside from simply asserting it then. In short, you have no way to justify it.

I don't need any justification. Does the phrase "there is no accounting for taste" mean anything to you? Disagreements about matters of taste cannot be objectively resolved. Besides, you don't need my justifications, you already agree with me - you too, disapprove of child torture. Need I do more than to simply assert it?

So anyone who approves of child torture is morally right because they approve of child torture.

That doesn't follow. They are still moral wrong because I, Bust Nak, disapprove of child torture, what others are thinking is irrelevant here.

Is there a meaningful difference?

Of course there is, 1+1=4 is wrong as in incorrect, child torture is wrong as in immoral. The former is an expression on objective facts, the latter of subjective opinion.

It’s not even necessary to answer this question since you can’t offer any justification for thinking child torture is morally wrong.

Why is my unwillingness/inability to offer up justification for thinking child torture is wrong, a justification for you to not tell me what you meant? Are you suggesting that there is no meaningful difference between factual correctness and approval/disapproval?

That doesn’t make it wrong for Bob though.

You are not talking to Bob though, you asked me, Bust Nak. What Bob thinks is irrelevant as to what I think.

That only makes it wrong for you. Bob thinks it’s good to torture children because he thinks it’s good.

Meh, don't care much what Bob thinks, as long as he refrains from child torture. Why do you care what a child torture proponent thinks?

But why would you want to stop Bob from abusing children?

Because it is immoral.

Why is your belief right and his wrong?

His belief is immoral because I disapprove of his beliefs; and obviously I approve of my own beliefs, otherwise I wouldn't be holding said beliefs in the first place.

And by the way, Bob lives in a place where everybody else believes child abuse is good too. So why impose your morality on Bob’s society by trying to force him to stop?

Same answer as above, because it is immoral. They are just as wrong as Bob.

After all what does it matter? We are all just highly evolved bacteria anyway.

Because it makes me sad to know immoral things is happening, stopping it would make me happier. That's what makes highly evolved bacteria tick.

So what if you disprove?

What do you mean so what? You asked me why and I answered, that's it.

Who are you to say the Nazi’s were immoral?

I am Bust Nak, the world's best and only authority on the opinion of Bust Nak. That's who.

Even if everyone else held the opinion it was bad, it would still be good though because you held that opinion, right?

Correct.

Why were the Nazi’s immoral again?

Because I disapprove of it. Nothing has changed since the last time you asked me.

Until your opinion changes. I know you say it never will. But can you guarantee that it won’t?

No, there is no guarantee. Do come back here and tell me "told you so" if and when I do.

So what?

So other people would earn my disapproval.

You’d be the only one left and who are you to disapprove anyway?

Asked and answer - I am Bust Nak - moral agent; a subject disapproving/approving objects.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 38 by Goose]

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?

Goose, let's pretend that we exist in the world q where the Nazis won the war, exterminated the opposition and all anyone ever read about them was propaganda literature that glorified their actions.

In that world, what is different to the real world that we are actually in, where we have the Old Testament recording tales of Joshua the successor of Moses and apologists who insist that what Joshua did was good, and moral, and just, and words to that effect?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 38 by Goose]

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?

If it is indeed your view that 'mass genocide is wrong regardless of the reason', then please explain the instances of such in the Bible and where it is glorified therein, such as the Joshua Conquest stories, or the Noah's Flood story?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 51 by Goose]

You have no grounds upon which to argue child torture is wrong aside from simply asserting it then. In short, you have no way to justify it. So anyone who approves of child torture is morally right because they approve of child torture.

Ask yourself why you said "you have no grounds...". It seems to me that you have convinced yourself that the only valid answer is Divine Command Theory, which quite simply doesn't fly with the rest of us.
You also, in my eyes, can be said to have no grounds to argue child torture or child murder is wrong aside from simply asserting it, since in the Bible we find such instances of it.
If you honestly want to argue that child murder is (objectively) wrong, then you HAVE to disregard the Bible, which promotes such at one point or another.

[Goat]

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?

It's subjectively wrong. Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective?

[Willum]

[Replying to Goat]

And at last we come to it:
Definitions again.
Somewhere Riku' you misused the word "the," when discussing "objective" and/or "subjective," in pointing your misuse of the word,obviously since you or your opponent have chosen the wrong meaning of "the" your argument is invalid.