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]

[Replying to post 69 by Goose]

I’ve asserted the following proposition is true.

Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

It’s objective because it is true regardless of who believes it to be true.

How is that statement true? I don't believe that the statement is true (notice what I'm saying, I'm not necessarily saying I believe the statement to be false).

Of course you believe it's true. That's why, just like Bustnak, if your neighbour Bob were to begin torturing and killing babies for giggles you would do something about it. It's through our experiences we know that proposition is true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 69 by Goose]

I’ve asserted the following proposition is true.

Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

It’s objective because it is true regardless of who believes it to be true.

How is that statement true? I don't believe that the statement is true (notice what I'm saying, I'm not necessarily saying I believe the statement to be false).

Of course you believe it's true. That's why, just like Bustnak, if your neighbour Bob were to begin torturing and killing babies for giggles you would do something about it. It's through our experiences we know that proposition is true.

I believe the action in question is subjectively immoral, but objectively? As a matter of fact, along the lines of 2+2=4?
Nope.
Now let's say neighbour Bob comes over and sees me not torturing and murdering babies, and decides to fix that. I can of course physically restrain him, but when it comes to reasoning with him, how does simply stating "this action is immoral" help?
He doesn't believe it to be immoral. In his eyes, I'm the immoral one, for not doing it.

[Bust Nak]

That’s not the argument. The argument isn’t we all agree therefore it is objective. That we all agree is merely suggestive. I’ve asserted the following proposition is true.

Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

It’s objective because it is true regardless of who believes it to be true. You agreed to this notion of objective earlier.

No idea where you got that impression from. Nowhere have I agreed to this "notion of objective" on this forum, let alone in that post. Quote me directly and perhaps we can get to the bottom of your misconception.

You are of course welcome to argue that proposition is false.

Why would I though? I've already affirmed that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

Of course someone could have the facts correct and still prefer to torture children. Enter Bob. Just like the Nazi’s got it wrong. It doesn’t logically follow that the torture of children is wrong is therefore not an objective truth anymore than if someone were to believe 2+2=5 it follows it isn’t objectively true 2+2=4.

Here you are affirming that someone can "have the facts correct" and yet get it "wrong," thus affirming moral subjectivism. I am left to conclude that I must have misunderstood you.

Perhaps it is time you stop using the words "right" and "wrong," you are making it hard to follow what you are saying. Say correct/incorrect or say moral/immoral. Right/wrong is ambiguous.

Wow. Bob said something along those lines too.

Okay? Is that all you've got to say about my response? I take it you were satisfied that your challenge were met then?

That we disapprove is our expression of what we know to be true. We know to be true the following proposition.

Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

Okay, prove it. "Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral" does not imply "torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral is true regardless of who believes it to be true." Why are you banging on about our shared disapprove when you've already affirmed that "agreement -> objective" wasn't supposed to be your argument?

[tfvespasianus]

That's why, just like Bustnak, if your neighbour Bob were to begin torturing and killing babies for giggles you would do something about it. It's through our experiences we know that proposition is true.

I still don’t understand why it’s not sufficient to say whatever abhorrent practice we may wish to posit is immoral in our subjective determination. We make subjective determinations all the time and they have force and meaning in our lives. Moreover, it’s simply a tactical point to bring up an atrocity to bolster some case for an objective morality. If this objective system exists, I assume it is all-encompassing and thus defenders would have to posit how the ‘know’ the correct moral status of same-sex relationships, whistle-blowing in government, cheating in sports, and going outside without a shirt on. In my experience, extensive pronouncements about actually contentious moral question start to look less ‘objective’ and more like someone’s personal assessment of what is right and wrong.

Take care,
TFV

[tfvespasianus]

It's through our experiences we know that proposition is true.

Interpreting the world based upon personal experience involves subjectivity.

[Aetixintro]

It seems to me just crazy to doubt the existence of behaviour in road traffic, especially if you're the driver.

Similarly, nobody questions the travelling of airplanes from one destination to another or ships travelling the World the same.

Yet, morality, the "traffic behaviour" between people is all of a sudden supposed to be unreal.

No, morality is d*mn real, just like the various traffic mentioned above.

Duh?

[William]

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.

---

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.

Hi William. I'm not quite clear. Are you suggesting there is objective morality?

I am not suggesting there is or there isn't. The OP does not define morality. But we all know it exists, right?

[Goat]

Pretend that I'm someone who has never before thought of this concept of 'child murder is wrong'.

Okay. Asked yourself if the following proposition is true.

Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

Is that true or false?

Before we even go there, we should define some terms first.

What do you mean when you say 'Objective morality'

What do you think other people mean when they 'Subjective morality'?

[Goose]

No idea where you got that impression from. Nowhere have I agreed to this "notion of objective" on this forum, let alone in that post. Quote me directly and perhaps we can get to the bottom of your misconception.

I got that impression from the post I linked to.

Me: “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.�

You: “Agreed, no problems here.�

What were you agreeing to then?

Why would I though? I've already affirmed that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

Right. And you’ve also affirmed it would be true even if every other mind believed it was not true.

Here you are affirming that someone can "have the facts correct" and yet get it "wrong," thus affirming moral subjectivism. I am left to conclude that I must have misunderstood you.

You aren’t addressing my point here although I grant I may have worded it poorly. I’m pointing out someone can know what is moral and still choose to run against it. Alternatively if someone sincerely believed torturing children was a moral thing to do we would probably say that person is insane. Neither of those are endorsements of moral subjectivism as far as I can see. Neither do those negate the existence of objective morals.

Okay, prove it. "Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral" does not imply "torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral is true regardless of who believes it to be true."

Sure it does. If it’s true that it’s immoral to torture and kill babies for entertainment, then it’s true that it’s immoral regardless of anyone’s opinion or belief to the contrary.

[Goose]

That's why, just like Bustnak, if your neighbour Bob were to begin torturing and killing babies for giggles you would do something about it. It's through our experiences we know that proposition is true.

I still don’t understand why it’s not sufficient to say whatever abhorrent practice we may wish to posit is immoral in our subjective determination. We make subjective determinations all the time and they have force and meaning in our lives. Moreover, it’s simply a tactical point to bring up an atrocity to bolster some case for an objective morality. If this objective system exists, I assume it is all-encompassing and thus defenders would have to posit how the ‘know’ the correct moral status of same-sex relationships, whistle-blowing in government, cheating in sports, and going outside without a shirt on. In my experience, extensive pronouncements about actually contentious moral question start to look less ‘objective’ and more like someone’s personal assessment of what is right and wrong.

Take care,
TFV

I've already granted earlier that there can be moral grey areas and subjectivity with some issues. That, however, doesn't thereby nullify the existence of objective moral values. You may not know whether to go outside with a shirt on, but you know that child torture, rape, murder, and slavery are wrong.