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?

Blastcat · Post by **Blastcat** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:04 am

[Replying to post 208 by Artie]

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".

- I was trying to say that I think you mean that morality can be objective, we have instincts for survival, like the bee, and these are not due to personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. These last three would be subjective criteria for morality, not objective ones.

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 think that there are two possible kinds of morality. One is objective, and that is based on facts that are the same for every human, and the other is subjective, where the morality "depends" on personal tastes, feelings and opinions.

I was saying that we might agree that morality can be objective.

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.

Right... I just wanted clarity on whether or not you agree with me that morality can be objective. I was looking for a yes/no kind of an answer.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:46 am

Bust Nak wrote:But they mean the exact same thing. The statements "this painting is beautiful" and "this painting is beautiful in my opinion" is interchangeable.

Of course not. Saying "something is something" is a statement of fact. Saying "in my opinion something is something" is a statement of opinion not fact.

Personal opinion is the ONLY thing that can make painting beautiful or ugly

Personal opinion can't make any painting beautiful or ugly.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:59 am

Artie wrote: Of course not. Saying "something is something" is a statement of fact. Saying "in my opinion something is something" is a statement of opinion not fact.

Saying "something is something" is a statement of fact, if and only if the thing in question is objective.

Personal opinion can't make any painting beautiful or ugly.

You are denying the existence of aesthetic to just make your worldview work.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:25 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
Personal opinion can't make any painting beautiful or ugly.
You are denying the existence of aesthetic to just make your worldview work.
A painting is neither beautiful nor ugly. You can say that in your opinion the painting is beautiful but that doesn't make it beautiful. In the absence of any organisms with the ability to have personal opinions about it a painting is neither beautiful nor ugly it just is, it just exists.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:31 pm

Artie wrote:
Bust Nak wrote:
Personal opinion can't make any painting beautiful or ugly.
You are denying the existence of aesthetic to just make your worldview work.
A painting is neither beautiful nor ugly. You can say that in your opinion the painting is beautiful but that doesn't make it beautiful. In the absence of any organisms with the ability to have personal opinions about it a painting is neither beautiful nor ugly it just is, it just exists.

The last part is not being disputed, hence the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but you are saying something on top of that, you are saying a painting is neither beautiful nor ugly in the presence of organisms and their personal opinions about it. That amounts to the denial of aesthetic.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:34 pm

Bust Nak wrote:The last part is not being disputed, hence the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but you are saying something on top of that, you are saying a painting is neither beautiful nor ugly in the presence of organisms and their personal opinions about it. That amounts to the denial of aesthetic.

Rubbish. In the presence of organisms the painting IS neither beautiful nor ugly. They THINK it is beautiful or ugly. That is why we say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and not something the painting IS in and of itself.

Blastcat · Post by **Blastcat** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:13 pm

[Replying to post 214 by Bust Nak]

Artie wrote:A painting is neither beautiful nor ugly. You can say that in your opinion the painting is beautiful but that doesn't make it beautiful. In the absence of any organisms with the ability to have personal opinions about it a painting is neither beautiful nor ugly it just is, it just exists.

Of course, without any observer, there can be no aesthetic evaluation. So, in order to have aesthetics, we do need the human.

Humans have tastes... that's a fact. And a lot of human tastes are similar due to the fact that we are of the same species. To the degree that we can agree on those aesthetic evaluations... then it's objectively true that something is beautiful TO the human.

Aesthetics is a HUMAN category. It's useless to say that aesthetics can exist on it's own without humans.

I often ask people why they all "like" the look of a flock of geese flying through the air.. that symmetry really seems to "get" us.. Even small children "like" the shape that the birds make. There doesn't seem to be a REASON why we all like that kind of formation, but it's a fact that we all mostly do.

Aesthetics can be about objective facts. What we find beautiful is objectively so, in some circumstances. We don't find dark, muddied messes nice to look at, generally. We like pretty colors and pretty people in nice poses... An art dealer can tell us what is "bad" and what is "good" art, for example.

General rules can be established about aesthetic matters.

We seem to be genetically predisposed to "like" things more than others, just the same way the bee seems to "like" flowers.... To the bee, the flower is OBJECTIVELY "nice". We even have flower competitions based on objective criteria.

Flower competitions are judged by "experts" who know a lot about the species in question. At least the more reputable competitions.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:00 am

Artie wrote:
Bust Nak wrote:The last part is not being disputed, hence the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but you are saying something on top of that, you are saying a painting is neither beautiful nor ugly in the presence of organisms and their personal opinions about it. That amounts to the denial of aesthetic.
Rubbish. In the presence of organisms the painting IS neither beautiful nor ugly. They THINK it is beautiful or ugly. That is why we say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and not something the painting IS in and of itself.

Sure, beauty is not something the painting IS in and of itself, but that doesn't imply a painting is neither beautiful nor ugly.

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

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:04 pm

Bust Nak wrote: Sure, beauty is not something the painting IS in and of itself, but that doesn't imply a painting is neither beautiful nor ugly.

That's exactly what it does "imply".

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."

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:47 am

Artie wrote: 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.