Do objective morals exist?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10480
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Do objective morals exist?

Post #1

Post by William »

Q: Can we name any human moral rule which is not based upon opinion?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10480
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #2

Post by William »

Do objective morals exist?



I suppose that, this being a philosophical question, it is reaching beyond the known observation that morals do indeed objectively exist within human cultures.



Thus they can also be observed within nature - particularly within said human cultures.



It appears then that morals are a natural bi-product of biological life-forms, and are [currently] only able to be observed in the out-put of human expression/behavior, and not in moons and other planets...



The production [natural] brough about the advent of morality into nature, and so on that point I would have to answer the question with "Yes" - but only in relation to bio-logical animals which have evolved to the state whereby they are able to bring moral into their reality...



Search "Objective"

1.

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

["historians try to be objective and impartial"]

Search "Morals"

1.

lessons that can be derived from a story or experience.

2.

standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong.



Search "Ethnics"

1.

moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.



2.

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.




On the surface it appears that "objective" and "Morals" are oxymoron, thus the explanation for the thread Q. How do we combine the two opposing positions?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10480
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #3

Post by William »

A recent conversation re subject:
I don't see a conflict between 'objectivity' and your second definition for morality, i.e "standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong." The objectivity part doesn't require that we take human assessment completely out of the picture, but rather it requires that we leave out opinion. The question requires that one show that there are moral standards that all humans should be following. That requires an assessment so we'll always be in the picture, even if nature is the foundation for morality.
Can you name any human moral rule which is not based upon opinion?

Is there any known biological life-form other that human, where we can observe morality in practice? That would be the first place to look, as the confusion of human societies are too complex to gauge whether morals are objective or subjective - natural or contrived [assuming nature itself isn't a form of contriving].


Search "is there observable morality in animals"
In The Bonobo and the Atheist, renowned primatologist Frans de Waal argues that moral behavior in humans is not predicated on religion. Drawing from extensive research on animals—primarily bonobos and chimpanzees, our nearest primate relatives—as well as research on fossil records of early hominids, he shows how evidence of moral sentiments, like empathy and altruism, predate the advent of religion by millennia and co-evolved in non-human primates as well as in humans. [source]

Very good point to factor in. Non-human animals wouldn't have come up with their own moral standard, yet they seem to follow some standards of behavior. I've observed some animals even disciplining their young.
Perhaps it is the opinion on the parent that discipline is required. Are we to factor that in to the invention of morals?
The problem with making nature or biology the foundation of objective morality is that then it justifies the psychopaths or the male lions that kill the other male lions and their offspring just so they can take over the pride. Both are following their nature or biology. At best, I think we can say that morality is part of nature, but that alone does not tell us which morals are good or bad.
Is it good or bad that males lions kill off the competition?

Or is it simply that the opportunity presents itself to do so?

How would our world be if every male lion was spared this?

Sometimes I think that we "Disneyfy" the real world by superimposing our fantasies of a perfect world onto something we do not regard as a perfect world.

Perhaps therein, humans invented morality in order to try to force a perfect world onto the real one they have been experiencing.

If so, this opens up the question;

Q: "What is it about humans which has the ability to comprehend a [supposed] "Perfect World", which is so obviously different from the real world?"

We search for answers...

What have our sciences done to answer this question?

Or is it a matter that our sciences are being used specifically like unto the male lions, suppressing the main herd while they go about sailing into a particular direction they have selected for themselves?

For the herd notes, [for example] that as grandiose as the latest space telescope is - hurtling and unfurling [fully shaded] toward it's destination some million miles out and, simply to peer into the secrets of the past to 'try and understand'...the heard understands that the money could be 'better spent' on creating a perfect world here in the heart of imperfection - so why is that not been done?

Why is the rest of the herd being experimented on and used for that one purpose?

Just so a few lions can have their names recorded for all time?

Is that moral?

_________________________________________________________________

Does it matter, since morals are really human inventions and are not aligned with the actual reality?

And to the Theist who might believe such, I would add a question to that one.

Q: Since this is not the perfect world you imagine, since you are thinking of kingdoms of plenty where this kind of thing cannot take place, why do morals matter hereabouts in this world, when they seem to serve better in these other imagined next level worlds?

For me in the middle, [Agnostic] I am somewhat undecided. I see the potential for humans to actually build a perfect world for themselves - irrespective of the chaos - and see those in the sciences attempting to do that.[through none other than the devices of the Sciences]
Unfortunately - not everyone is in favor of the perfect world envisioned - of the fiction-like story scientists are opening the door to...and so those not in favor are factored out, through invention...just like how the male lions deal with the male off-spring...not with morals but simply through the natural rule of the game-play of this reality...the School of Hard Knocks.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #4

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:19 pm Q: Can we name any human moral rule which is not based upon opinion?
I can't, but certainly the morals of the god of Abraham are sometimes objective and pronounced as fiat. For instance, he obviously feels that killing practicing male homosexuals is moral, but gives no reason. He also condones one person owning another person as property, which to him would be morally correct, yet again with no cogent reason.


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10480
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #5

Post by William »

[Replying to Miles in post #4]
I can't
No, nor can I.
but certainly the morals of the god of Abraham are sometimes objective and pronounced as fiat.
I think morals, whatever source they originate re human culture, are found no where else in nature and are really social/cultural opinions with accompanying teeth - so are real/objective in relation to that which is judged and punished as immoral - the judgements are therefore also opinion-based.

Re- religion, the 'teeth' are claimed still operative in relation to any subsequent continuation of individual experience - re religious-based afterlife concepts - where more judgment is promised.

Meantime in this reality, the underlying reason for morality appears to be for some sake of creating/building a perfect [or far better] world.

But not for everyone...

Q: "What is it about humans which has the ability to comprehend a [supposed] "Perfect World", which is so obviously different from the real world?"


[I wonder, because its seems to me that this is the reason morals were invented.]

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #6

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:53 pm [Replying to Miles in post #4]
I can't
No, nor can I.
but certainly the morals of the god of Abraham are sometimes objective and pronounced as fiat.
I think morals, whatever source they originate re human culture, are found no where else in nature and are really social/cultural opinions with accompanying teeth - so are real/objective in relation to that which is judged and punished as immoral - the judgements are therefore also opinion-based.
As do I, however, many Christians do believe they should conduct themselves in such a way as to comport with the moral dictates of their god. . . . as much as possible

Exodus 22:18
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Leviticus 20:17
17 “It is a shameful thing for a brother and his sister or half-sister to marry each other and have sexual relations with each other.[a] They must be punished in public. They must be separated from their people. The man who has sexual relations with his sister must be punished for his sin.

Leviticus 20:13
13 “If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.

But in as much we don't see witches, active homosexual males, and incestuous brothers and sisters killed or simply punished, obviously god and his moral demands are waning a bit. \:D/



.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10480
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #7

Post by William »

[Replying to Miles in post #6]

Since "God" cannot be observed in any meaningful way, we are left with human opinion.

What about the godless formation of human morality? More opinion yes? No different in function?
Last edited by William on Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #8

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:17 pm [Replying to Miles in post #6]

Since "God" cannot be observed in any meaningful way, we are left with human opinion.
You and I may be left with human opinion, but others do, in fact, believe they "observe" god in a meaningful way. They say all kinds of crazy things about him, and even give his words power within their lives.
What about the godless formation of human morality? More opinion yes? No different in function.
Morality pretty much functions the same no matter where it comes from; my mind, your mind, and the mind some people claim their god possesses.


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10480
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #9

Post by William »

Miles wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:35 pm
William wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:17 pm [Replying to Miles in post #6]


What about the godless formation of human morality? More opinion yes? No different in function.
Morality pretty much functions the same no matter where it comes from; my mind, your mind, and the mind some people claim their god possesses.


.
Re the Qs:

Q: "What is it about humans which has the ability to comprehend a [supposed] "Perfect World", which is so obviously different from the real world?"

Q: What have our sciences done to answer this question?

Q: Is it a matter that our sciences are being used specifically like unto the male lions, suppressing the main herd while they go about sailing into a particular direction they have selected for themselves?

For example:

The James Webb Space Telescope

For the herd of humanity notes, that - as grandiose as the latest space telescope is - hurtling and unfurling [fully shaded] toward it's destination some million miles out and, simply to peer into the secrets of the past to 'try and understand'...the human herd understands that the money could be 'better spent' on helping in creating a perfect world here in the heart of imperfection - so why is that not been done?

Image

Is it a case of materialism wanting to squash the idea of "God" permanently, and thus trillions of $$ which could have been used to fund a more perfect world, has been invested into showing "God" is not only dead, but never existed in the first place?

Moral of The Story:
1: The investment of $Trillion$ into such scientific pursuits is morally acceptable on those grounds, and need not have been used in things requiring attention [Human humanity to humankind] as killing the idea of "God" permanently should 'fix' everything?

or;

2: Is it more a matter of investing in something which may or may not provide evidence re "God" but - even if very difficult to achieve - is more achievable [more practical] than trying to get the co-operation necessary from the human herd, to invest in the formation of a perfect world through scientific know-how?



Given the extent of materialistic influence on the collective-mind of the human herd, which of the two is more likely?

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 926 times

Re: Do objective morals exist?

Post #10

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:50 pm
Miles wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:35 pm
William wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:17 pm [Replying to Miles in post #6]


What about the godless formation of human morality? More opinion yes? No different in function.
Morality pretty much functions the same no matter where it comes from; my mind, your mind, and the mind some people claim their god possesses.


.
Re the Qs:

Q: "What is it about humans which has the ability to comprehend a [supposed] "Perfect World", which is so obviously different from the real world?"
Imagination. To conceptualize our wishes.

Q: What have our sciences done to answer this question?
Don't have any idea.

Q: Is it a matter that our sciences are being used specifically like unto the male lions, suppressing the main herd while they go about sailing into a particular direction they have selected for themselves?

For example:

The James Webb Space Telescope

For the herd of humanity notes, that - as grandiose as the latest space telescope is - hurtling and unfurling [fully shaded] toward it's destination some million miles out and, simply to peer into the secrets of the past to 'try and understand'...the human herd understands that the money could be 'better spent' on helping in creating a perfect world here in the heart of imperfection - so why is that not been done?

Image

Is it a case of materialism wanting to squash the idea of "God" permanently, and thus trillions of $$ which could have been used to fund a more perfect world, has been invested into showing "God" is not only dead, but never existed in the first place?

Moral of The Story:
1: The investment of $Trillion$ into such scientific pursuits is morally acceptable on those grounds, and need not have been used in things requiring attention [Human humanity to humankind] as killing the idea of "God" permanently should 'fix' everything?

or;

2: Is it more a matter of investing in something which may or may not provide evidence re "God" but - even if very difficult to achieve - is more achievable [more practical] than trying to get the co-operation necessary from the human herd, to invest in the formation of a perfect world through scientific know-how?

Given the extent of materialistic influence on the collective-mind of the human herd, which of the two is more likely?
I'd scratch god out of the equation, whatever it may be.


.

Post Reply