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]

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?

[Goose]

[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.

But your feelings can mislead you can they not? So how can you be sure anything based on your feelings is right? How is that rigorous?

By the way why is empathy good?

[Goose]

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?

Actually I agree with you. You need not do more than simply assert it because it’s true and we all recognize it’s true because our experiences tell us it’s true. Torturing and killing babies for fun is wrong is as self evident as the physical world around us.

On the other hand we might certainly disagree about taste and many other things. But we don’t disagree about the following proposition even though we hold diametrically opposed world views.

Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

That proposition remains just as true as 2+2=4 is true even if every mind in the universe happens to believe it false. It is therefore objectively true.

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

But likewise your opinion is irrelevant in consideration of others opinions. Everyone’s opinion is valid right? And anyone who approves of child torture is just as right as you are because it’s all just a pile of subjective opinions, right?

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?

When someone says torturing and killing babies for entertainment is wrong, they are correct as in they have the facts correct. They are correct because it is a fact that torturing and killing babies is wrong. On what grounds would dispute the fact that it is wrong to torture and kill babies for entertainment?

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

And what you think is irrelevant to what Bob thinks. I asked Bob too because I’ve been told everyone’s opinion is valid. He thinks child torture is really cool. How do we know who’s right if it’s just a pile of subjective opinions?

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?

Why aren’t you interested in what Bob and his countrymen think? They are people too. Maybe he/they has some compelling reasons as to why child torture is a good thing. Why aren’t you listening to Bob? How can you be so sure you’ve got it right?

Because it is immoral.

Not according to Bob.

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.

That’s funny because Bob said the exact same thing about you.

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

Yeah they said you’d say that.

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.

But since you are just a highly evolved bacteria you could feel “happiness� by doing drugs. That happiness you feel is just a chemical reaction anyway. So is that compassion you feel for babies who are tortured. Besides, stopping immoral things takes so much resources and time. Not to mention the world is over populated as it is anyway. We could do with a few less highly evolved bacteria around here. Overcome your sadness with the stark reality that we are all just moist meat machines riding on an insignificant dust ball destined for eventual destruction anyway. Nothing you do matters. Just ride it out man.

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

I was speaking for the Nazi’s. They say so what. They disagree with you.

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

Fine but what gives you the moral right to impose your opinion on Bob and the Nazi’s? When you can’t even show your view is the right one since it’s just a subjective opinion?

[Goose]

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.

That's fine. We can disregard the Bible.

[rikuoamero]

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.

That's fine. We can disregard the Bible.

I'm actually surprised a Christian is willing to disregard the Bible when discussing morality.
Okay then. Please make a case for objective morality (such as 'child murder is wrong') without it being tautological or referencing the Bible or the God of the Bible (or indeed a god at all) in any way.
Pretend that I'm someone who has never before thought of this concept of 'child murder is wrong'. Convince this version of me.

[Goose]

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?

[Bust Nak]

Actually I agree with you. You need not do more than simply assert it because it’s true and we all recognize it’s true because our experiences tell us it’s true. Torturing and killing babies for fun is wrong is as self evident as the physical world around us. On the other hand we might certainly disagree about taste and many other things. But we don’t disagree about the following proposition even though we hold diametrically opposed world views.

Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

That proposition remains just as true as 2+2=4 is true even if every mind in the universe happens to believe it false. It is therefore objectively true.

That is an affirming the consequence fallacy, mixed with a dash of question begging fallacy. Agreement or disagreement is simply irrelevant when it comes to objective facts; yet you've somehow jumped from the premise that there is universal agreement on child torture, to the conclusion that it is an objective fact. It does not follow.

But likewise your opinion is irrelevant in consideration of others opinions.

That depends entirely on the context. My opinion is the only thing relevant given the question of "what is Bust Nak's opinion?" Don't forget, you asked me if child torture was moral or immoral.

Everyone’s opinion is valid right? And anyone who approves of child torture is just as right as you are because it’s all just a pile of subjective opinions, right?

No. They are only right if their opinion aligns with mine, they are wrong if they disagree with me, exactly because it’s all just a pile of subjective opinions.

When someone says torturing and killing babies for entertainment is wrong, they are correct as in they have the facts correct. They are correct because it is a fact that torturing and killing babies is wrong...

This presumes there is such a think as "moral facts" independent from subjective judgement. Someone can have all the facts correct and still prefer to torture children for fun.

On what grounds would dispute the fact that it is wrong to torture and kill babies for entertainment?

Loaded question cannot be answered. The premise that it is a fact that it is wrong to torture and kill babies for entertainment, is false. The fact is you and I (along many others) disapprove of torture and killing babies for entertainment.

And what you think is irrelevant to what Bob thinks. I asked Bob too because I’ve been told everyone’s opinion is valid. He thinks child torture is really cool. How do we know who’s right if it’s just a pile of subjective opinions?

You could always adopt my views, if you can't form an opinion of your own.

Why aren’t you interested in what Bob and his countrymen think? They are people too. Maybe he/they has some compelling reasons as to why child torture is a good thing. Why aren’t you listening to Bob? How can you be so sure you’ve got it right?

Because you cannot account for taste. I make do making sure they refrain from child torture. I can give you all the compelling reasons to eat (or avoid) cucumbers, yet I cannot make you like (or dislike) the taste of cucumbers by reasoning with you. Having said that, it might be fun to hear Bob try to justify child torture. Go ahead, what are Bob's compelling reasons?

Not according to Bob... That’s funny because Bob said the exact same thing about you... Yeah they said you’d say that... They say so what. They disagree with you.

So what indeed? You asked me if they are immoral, and I gave you my answer. Was the fact that they disagree supposed to change my mind? Did you expect me to say "oh well, let them do all the child torture they want?"

But since you are just a highly evolved bacteria you could feel “happiness� by doing drugs... stopping immoral things takes so much resources and time... the world is over populated... Just ride it out man.

Nah, I think I will do what is right instead. That's what this highly evolved bacteria want to do. And for the record, we are highly evolved eukaryotes, distinct from bacteria.

Fine but what gives you the moral right to impose your opinion on Bob and the Nazi’s?

Nothing. I don't need rights to have an opinion. I don't need rights to disapprove of Bob and the Nazis. I just need a functional brain, I simply think it and that's all there is to it.

When you can’t even show your view is the right one since it’s just a subjective opinion?

Oh, I have something far more relevant - what I do have, is the might to impose my will on Bob and the Nazis.

[rikuoamero]

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?

I would say the statement "torturing and killing babies for entertainment is subjectively immoral" is true.
I don't know about objectively immoral or objectively moral though.

[Goose]

That is an affirming the consequence fallacy, mixed with a dash of question begging fallacy. Agreement or disagreement is simply irrelevant when it comes to objective facts; yet you've somehow jumped from the premise that there is universal agreement on child torture, to the conclusion that it is an objective fact. It does not follow.

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

This presumes there is such a think as "moral facts" independent from subjective judgement. Someone can have all the facts correct and still prefer to torture children for fun.

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.

The premise that it is a fact that it is wrong to torture and kill babies for entertainment, is false.

Wow. Bob said something along those lines too.

The fact is you and I (along many others) disapprove of torture and killing babies for entertainment.

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.

[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).
You use the analogy of 2+2=4 as something 'objectively true' but you forget, we only accept that through empiricism. The sum of 2+2 has been done so many times, and we've found that it results to 4 so many times, that we take it as an axiom now.
How has 'Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral. been similarly found to be true?
If need be, I can calculate 2+2 and find out if it does indeed still come to 4, but other than my own subjective opinion, how do I find out that the above statement actually is true?