Objective Morality?

[enviousintheeverafter]

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?

[Artie]

That's exactly what it does "imply".

I disagree.

What does the sentence "this painting is beautiful" mean to you? It is incorrect , is it meaningless or is it incomplete, or what?

It is incorrect. Correct would be "I think this painting is beautiful."

If "X" is incorrect then "I think X" is an instance of someone thinking something that is incorrect, yet you say it is correct. You have a contradiction.

No I don't your reasoning is wrong. I give up on you for the time being since you simply don't understand. See you later.

[Bust Nak]

No I don't your reasoning is wrong. I give up on you for the time being since you simply don't understand. See you later.

Okay, like I said before, I like having the last word: "your reasoning is wrong" is an unsupported assertion and "you don't understand" is not a counter-argument.

[OpenYourEyes]

enviousintheeverafter wrote:
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?


My response:

To answer that question would require someone showing that there is an objective basis for their morality as opposed to the shifting sands of culture. Not causing harm and society promoting standards tend to be universal, but then what does that matter to other cultures if they can destroy our society. So much for survival. Otherwise, what is the point of objective morality if no one or not everyone has to follow it?

[Danmark]

enviousintheeverafter wrote:
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?


My response:

To answer that question would require someone showing that there is an objective basis for their morality as opposed to the shifting sands of culture. Not causing harm and society promoting standards tend to be universal, but then what does that matter to other cultures if they can destroy our society. So much for survival. Otherwise, what is the point of objective morality if no one or not everyone has to follow it?

This is one of the easiest claims to refute and it has been many times.
Before we get to that, what is clear is the argument never even gets started because the ones that claim some objective morality from a god have the problem of "which god?" Certainly the Biblical god is no standard since he supposedly created man, then pronounced man corrupt, then destroyed him. This is a weird kind of murderous "love."

What we do see is that evolution has produced many species that have an objective morality based on cooperation for survival. These species have empathy, a sense of fairness, reciprocity that is universal. No angry contradictory murderous god necessary.

[Bust Nak]

What we do see is that evolution has produced many species that have an objective morality based on cooperation for survival.

Do we really see that? How do you tell the difference between evolution producing many species that have an subjective morality based on cooperation for survival, and evolution producing many species that have an objective morality based on cooperation for survival?

[OpenYourEyes]

This is one of the easiest claims to refute and it has been many times.
Before we get to that, what is clear is the argument never even gets started because the ones that claim some objective morality from a god have the problem of "which god?" Certainly the Biblical god is no standard since he supposedly created man, then pronounced man corrupt, then destroyed him. This is a weird kind of murderous "love."

What we do see is that evolution has produced many species that have an objective morality based on cooperation for survival. These species have empathy, a sense of fairness, reciprocity that is universal. No angry contradictory murderous god necessary.

Evolution is driven by natural selection, and natural selection does not lead to perfection. I don't deny that morals can work by a process of evolution, but it begs the question of if that system is objective, especially when we see the same failed moral systems being repeated by mankind (do we learn from history?) leading to a cycle of failure. Nothing objective I can tell from that.

Ideally, an objective moral system should actually work perfectly towards a "good" end, assuming that there is supposed to be a "good" end which again begs the question.

[OpenYourEyes]

Selection, not perfection

Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress — but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This is apparent in the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... sconcep_02

[Haven]

Great seeing you back, OYE! I hope all is well.

Evolution is driven by natural selection, and natural selection does not lead to perfection. I don't deny that morals can work by a process of evolution, but it begs the question of if that system is objective, especially when we see the same failed moral systems being repeated by mankind (do we learn from history?) leading to a cycle of failure. Nothing objective I can tell from that.

Ideally, an objective moral system should actually work perfectly towards a "good" end, assuming that there is supposed to be a "good" end which again begs the question.

There are some hidden assumptions in this paragraph that need to be pointed out:

1. You've assumed that a system of objective morals is logically possible, but I don't think there's any reason to believe this. Morals are by definition evaluative in nature, and values are inherently subjective (because value requires a valuer, who by definition must be a subject). Therefore, the concept of objective moral values (values not based on a valuer) is logically incoherent.

2. You've assumed that "perfection" is a quality that an object can possess, but there's no reason to believe this either. Remember, calling something "perfect" is a value judgment; there's no objective, physical or logical standard of perfection. Because perfection is based on values (which can only be subjective), the concept of "objective perfections" is also incoherent.

3. "Good" is also a value, and hence subjective.

[agnosticatheist]

[Replying to post 1 by enviousintheeverafter]

Sam Harris defines ‘moral’ as that which concerns well-being (and not just human well-being), but that of all conscious creatures."

He further posits that: “maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures… [is] the only thing we can reasonably value.�

Seems pretty objective to me.

But not everyone values that?

Does morality have to be universally agreed with for it to be objective?

[Artie]

1. You've assumed that a system of objective morals is logically possible, but I don't think there's any reason to believe this. Morals are by definition evaluative in nature, and values are inherently subjective (because value requires a valuer, who by definition must be a subject). Therefore, the concept of objective moral values (values not based on a valuer) is logically incoherent.

Any organisms with a survival instinct "value" their lives, even those whose actions aren't "subjectively based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" but on pure instinct.