Objective Morality?

enviousintheeverafter · Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:37 pm

It is often claimed that objective morality only exists if God does- that without God, there is no basis for claiming that morality is objective, that anything like objective moral facts or duties exist. Of course, for this argument to have any force, it needs to be true, or probably true, that objective morality does in fact exist.

So does it? Why think there are such things as objective moral facts or duties?

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:48 pm

Artie wrote: So when you said "it is morally wrong to chop down the rain forest because I disapprove of chopping down rain forest." were you sarcastic, did you lie or what?

Or I was telling the truth and chopping down rain forest is wrong because I disapprove of it.

So if you say "it is morally wrong to chop down the rain forest because I disapprove of chopping down rain forest." and another person says "It is morally right to chop down the rain forest because I approve of chopping down rain forest." is it both morally right and wrong?

Something can't be both right and wrong. Whether it id right or wrong, depends in who you ask, since you are asking me, it is morally wrong.

It really is not complicated, you intrinsically knows it when it comes to taste or beauty. Substitute beauty for morality and see for yourself.

A: Is this painting beautiful?
B: Yes it is beautiful.
A: Excellent. Then we all know that this painting is beautiful for no other reason than because "Bust Nak says so."
B: You are missing the point of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." You can decide if this is beautiful yourself.
A: So did you lie when you said a painting is beautiful because you liked the look of it? If another person says it's ugly because he doesn't like the look of this painting, is it both beautiful and ugly?
B: I did not lie, it is beautiful because I like the look of it. It's not both beautiful and ugly, it just depends on who you ask. Since you are asking me, it IS beautiful.

That is not so hard to swallow, is it? You do understand what subjectivism means in other context. Just apply what you already know to morality.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:47 pm

Bust Nak wrote:Something can't be both right and wrong. Whether it id right or wrong, depends in who you ask, since you are asking me, it is morally wrong.

So if I ask you it is morally wrong and if I ask somebody else it is morally right? So if you both answer at the exact time it must be both morally right and wrong, unless one of you is wrong.

It really is not complicated, you intrinsically knows it when it comes to taste or beauty. Substitute beauty for morality and see for yourself.

A: Is this painting beautiful?
B: Yes it is beautiful.

A: Is this painting beautiful?
B: Yes it is beautiful.
C: No, it's ugly.
Is the painting beautiful or ugly or both?

Blastcat · Post by **Blastcat** » Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:15 pm

[Replying to post 187 by Artie]

Artie wrote:
Blastcat wrote:Do you think that morality doesn't have anything to do with how we treat OTHER people, but ONLY ourselves? You haven't thought out what you mean by morality if you think it pertains only to INDIVIDUAL well-being. Morality is about how to treat OTHERS... not just gratifying ourselves individually.
If I treat others well chances are others will treat me well increasing my own survival chances. So the behavior "treating others well" was selected for since it's beneficial for all.

I'm having trouble knowing if you meant "yes" or "no" by your answer. You say that if we treat others well, that it would impact us personally, and that's true. And on the other hand, you do seem to agree that morality is "beneficial for all".

I happen to think that morality is "beneficial for all", too, and if there were no other people, there would be no NEED for morality. To me, morality is about how we treat others. I don't see what this has to do with subjectivity or objectivity, however, and I am a bit confused at to your position.

I think you hold the opinion that morality cannot be objective, but I'm not too sure.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sat Oct 24, 2015 5:23 pm

Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 187 by Artie]

Artie wrote:
Blastcat wrote:Do you think that morality doesn't have anything to do with how we treat OTHER people, but ONLY ourselves? You haven't thought out what you mean by morality if you think it pertains only to INDIVIDUAL well-being. Morality is about how to treat OTHERS... not just gratifying ourselves individually.
If I treat others well chances are others will treat me well increasing my own survival chances. So the behavior "treating others well" was selected for since it's beneficial for all.
I'm having trouble knowing if you meant "yes" or "no" by your answer. You say that if we treat others well, that it would impact us personally, and that's true. And on the other hand, you do seem to agree that morality is "beneficial for all".
Of course behaving morally is beneficial for all. If we all treat others well it is beneficial for everybody including ourselves. There's no "other hand".
I happen to think that morality is "beneficial for all", too, and if there were no other people, there would be no NEED for morality. To me, morality is about how we treat others. I don't see what this has to do with subjectivity or objectivity, however, and I am a bit confused at to your position.

I think you hold the opinion that morality cannot be objective, but I'm not too sure.
We evolved a survival instinct. Among social animals behavior that was beneficial for survival was selected for. Bees give their lives for the hive. Vampire bats share food. Vervet monkeys warn others even though their alarm calls draw the predator's attention to themselves. Instinctive behavior ensuring survival for as many as possible of the group. Instinctive behavior that isn't something they all subjectively thought up because they are "moral" but because the objective processes evolution and natural selection selected for that behavior. The definition of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." When a bee defends the hive it doesn't do it because of "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" but as a result of being "programmed" by evolution and natural selection which are objective in that those processes don't have "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." When we share food with starving people we call the behavior "moral", when a vampire bat does it it's instinctual behavior. It's instinctual behavior for us too for the same reason.

dio9 · Post by **dio9** » Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:17 pm

morality is simply accepted behavior by a group.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:58 am

Artie wrote: So if I ask you it is morally wrong and if I ask somebody else it is morally right? So if you both answer at the exact time it must be both morally right and wrong, unless one of you is wrong.

That does not follow. I like vanilla ice-cream over chocolate ice-cream. Person B prefers opposite. The question "who is correct?" is a category error fallacy. The property of correctness is ascribed to a matter of taste when taste does not have have that property.

A: Is this painting beautiful?
B: Yes it is beautiful.
C: No, it's ugly.
Is the painting beautiful or ugly or both?

Am I supposed to be B or C, or an observer? If I am B, then beautiful; if I am C it's ugly; If I was supposed to be an observer, then it depends if I like the painting or not. It's never both.

Blastcat · Post by **Blastcat** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:09 am

[Replying to post 203 by Artie]

I think you hold the opinion that morality cannot be objective, but I'm not too sure.

Artie wrote:...The definition of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." When a bee defends the hive it doesn't do it because of "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" but as a result of being "programmed" by evolution and natural selection which are objective in that those processes don't have "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." When we share food with starving people we call the behavior "moral", when a vampire bat does it it's instinctual behavior. It's instinctual behavior for us too for the same reason.

Thanks for the clarification.

1) I think that you say morality can be objective. The bee, you say, doesn't defend the hive because of "personal feelings, tastes or opinions".

2) You seem to agree with me that morality is objective or subjective, depending on the on the nature of the criteria used. If the criteria is objective, then the morality will be objective. If the criteria is subjective, then the morality will be subjective, as well.

3) And you seem to base objective morality on evolution. It seems that you say what is instinctual is "moral".

I hope that I understand your position now. Correct me if I am wrong.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:31 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
A: Is this painting beautiful?
B: Yes it is beautiful.
C: No, it's ugly.
Is the painting beautiful or ugly or both?
Am I supposed to be B or C, or an observer? If I am B, then beautiful
Not it isn't. A painting is neither beautiful nor ugly. If you are B, you are OF THE OPINION that it is beautiful or YOU THINK it's beautiful, but it ISN'T beautiful.
if I am C it's ugly
If you are C, you are OF THE OPINION that it is ugly or YOU THINK it's ugly, but it ISN'T ugly. No personal opinions can make the painting beautiful or ugly.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:47 pm

Blastcat wrote:Thanks for the clarification.

1) I think that you say morality can be objective. The bee, you say, doesn't defend the hive because of "personal feelings, tastes or opinions".

2) You seem to agree with me that morality is objective or subjective, depending on the on the nature of the criteria used. If the criteria is objective, then the morality will be objective. If the criteria is subjective, then the morality will be subjective, as well.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.

3) And you seem to base objective morality on evolution. It seems that you say what is instinctual is "moral".

Just think of it this way. We evolved a survival instinct so we don't want to get murdered so we say murder is wrong or immoral. This survival instinct isn't a result of some "personal feelings, tastes or opinions" but of an objective natural process.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:35 am

Artie wrote:
Bust Nak wrote: Am I supposed to be B or C, or an observer? If I am B, then beautiful
Not it isn't. A painting is neither beautiful nor ugly. If you are B, you are OF THE OPINION that it is beautiful or YOU THINK it's beautiful, but it ISN'T beautiful.
if I am C it's ugly
If you are C, you are OF THE OPINION that it is ugly or YOU THINK it's ugly, but it ISN'T ugly. No personal opinions can make the painting beautiful or ugly.

But they mean the exact same thing. The statements "this painting is beautiful" and "this painting is beautiful in my opinion" is interchangeable. Personal opinion is the ONLY thing that can make painting beautiful or ugly, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.