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]

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?

Before we even go there, we should define some terms first.

What do you mean when you say 'Objective morality'

What do you think other people mean when they 'Subjective morality'?

Do you really need those terms defined in order to say it's true?

But objective morality in the argument is typically defined as something like morality which holds true regardless of human opinions or beliefs to the contrary.

[William]

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?

Before we even go there, we should define some terms first.

What do you mean when you say 'Objective morality'

What do you think other people mean when they 'Subjective morality'?

Do you really need those terms defined in order to say it's true?

But objective morality in the argument is typically defined as something like morality which holds true regardless of human opinions or beliefs to the contrary.

I think ultimately the OP is a trick question designed to get individuals who feel that morality is an objective property in the universe, to see that they should be able to point it out, like one can point out the Moon.

Same applies to GOD.

It is really all about the existence of consciousness within an objective universe, specifically working through biological life forms on this planet.

How weird is that?

Weird enough. Then add to that, how consciousness reacts to said universe and hello! "You can't really believe that things like morals and GOD are relative to this universe!"

Such observation - almost surely morally instigated by those proclaiming it - is justified by the very absence of either in any objective way.


"It's is all in your head."

(Only...'your head' just happens to be in this universe is besides the point, apparently.)

Truth is, it is all in the actions, not what is proclaimed or what you self identify as being. Those things are besides the point.

[Goat]

No idea where you got that impression from. Nowhere have I agreed to this "notion of objective" on this forum, let alone in that post. Quote me directly and perhaps we can get to the bottom of your misconception.

I got that impression from the post I linked to.

Me: “To be objectively true it is true regardless of who believes it be true. The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false.�

You: “Agreed, no problems here.�

What were you agreeing to then?

Why would I though? I've already affirmed that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

Right. And you’ve also affirmed it would be true even if every other mind believed it was not true.

Here you are affirming that someone can "have the facts correct" and yet get it "wrong," thus affirming moral subjectivism. I am left to conclude that I must have misunderstood you.

You aren’t addressing my point here although I grant I may have worded it poorly. I’m pointing out someone can know what is moral and still choose to run against it. Alternatively if someone sincerely believed torturing children was a moral thing to do we would probably say that person is insane. Neither of those are endorsements of moral subjectivism as far as I can see. Neither do those negate the existence of objective morals.

Okay, prove it. "Torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral" does not imply "torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral is true regardless of who believes it to be true."

Sure it does. If it’s true that it’s immoral to torture and kill babies for entertainment, then it’s true that it’s immoral regardless of anyone’s opinion or belief to the contrary.

That seem to me to be an opinion. Can you show that it is more than an opinion? What is your supporting evidence for it? It seems to me when it comes to morality, things are moral or not because of the interactions between people, and what they think of those interactions. That makes it subjective, not objective.

[Bust Nak]

I got that impression from the post I linked to.

Me: “To be objectively true it is true regardless of who believes it be true. The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false.�

You: “Agreed, no problems here.�

What were you agreeing to then?

I see what you are getting at now. Let me be more explicit then:

I am agreeing that for something to be objectively true it is true regardless of who believes it be true. The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false; in contrast, child torture is wrong is not objectively true, but subjective, it is true in relation to who believes it be true, it would only be true if my mind believed it true.

Right. And you’ve also affirmed it would be true even if every other mind believed it was not true.

That's a case of miscommunication. I was affirming that "the universe exists" would be true even if every other mind believed it was not true.

You aren’t addressing my point here although I grant I may have worded it poorly. I’m pointing out someone can know what is moral and still choose to run against it.

Right, so what?

Alternatively if someone sincerely believed torturing children was a moral thing to do we would probably say that person is insane. Neither of those are endorsements of moral subjectivism as far as I can see. Neither do those negate the existence of objective morals.

You are still presuming such things as objective morals. Neither of those are endorsements of moral objectivism. Neither do those negate the existence of subjective morals.

Sure it does. If it’s true that it’s immoral to torture and kill babies for entertainment, then it’s true that it’s immoral regardless of anyone’s opinion or belief to the contrary.

That's what I am asking you to prove and you've just repeated it. The above would be true if and only if morality is objective - in short, you've presented a question begging fallacy.

[Goose]

I am agreeing that for something to be objectively true it is true regardless of who believes it be true.

Exactly. Because something which is true, is true by virtue of it being the case. It’s not true by virtue of who believes it or not. And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false; in contrast, child torture is wrong is not objectively true, but subjective, it is true in relation to who believes it be true, it would only be true if my mind believed it true.

This is incoherent at best and blatantly self contradictory at worst. If something is true it is true because it is the case. It's incoherent to say something would only be true if your mind believed it true. Whether your mind believes or not is irrelevant to something being true. Truth is not contingent upon your mind believing. It’s like saying it would only be true the universe exists if my mind believed it true. You just made the existence of the universe subjective.

As a side note, do you know anyone who actually believes it is not true that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral?

That's a case of miscommunication. I was affirming that "the universe exists" would be true even if every other mind believed it was not true.

Fair enough. And likewise torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral even if every other mind happens to believe it is not.

That's what I am asking you to prove and you've just repeated it.

What are you wanting me to “prove� exactly and how would you like me to “prove� it? You have already affirmed the first premise is the case; that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral. So what’s the problem here?

[Bust Nak]

Exactly. Because something which is true, is true by virtue of it being the case. It’s not true by virtue of who believes it or not. And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

Is it the case with child torture? Prove it.

The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false; in contrast, child torture is wrong is not objectively true, but subjective, it is true in relation to who believes it be true, it would only be true if my mind believed it true.

This is incoherent at best and blatantly self contradictory at worst. If something is true it is true because it is the case. It's incoherent to say something would only be true if your mind believed it true.

What ever made you think that? It's how just opinion works. Consider the following example: I love hamburgers. I have no reservation in declaring for the world to hear that the statement "hamburgers are tasty" is true. Are you now going to somehow jump to the conclusion that food taste is objective?

Whether your mind believes or not is irrelevant to something being true.

That's only for objective truths, the same does not hold true for subjective matters. You presumed objective morality in an argument for objective morality. Once again you have presented a question begging fallacy.

Truth is not contingent upon your mind believing. It’s like saying it would only be true the universe exists if my mind believed it true. You just made the existence of the universe subjective.

I have explicitly stated that existence of the universe is an objective matter, as opposed to a subjective matter like child torture. I am not the one equating them, you are the one doing it.

As a side note, do you know anyone who actually believes it is not true that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral?

No, assuming you made Bob up. Why did you ask? I thought we've already established that agreement means nothing to objective facts?

Fair enough. And likewise torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral even if every other mind happens to believe it is not.

That's your claim, now prove it.

What are you wanting me to “prove� exactly and how would you like me to “prove� it? You have already affirmed the first premise is the case; that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral. So what’s the problem here?

The problem is you haven't proven that morality is an objective matter, as opposed to a subjective one. I want you to use deductive logic starting from agreed upon premises. Using "child torture" as short form for "torturing and killing babies for entertainment."

1) Bust Nak thinks child torture is immoral. (premise 1)
2) Goose thinks child torture is immoral. (premise 2)
3) Bust Nak and Goose agree on child torture being immoral. (premise 3)
4) No actual person thinks child torture is moral, there is universal agreement. (premise 4)
5) "Child torture is moral" is conceivable, a hypothetical Bob thinks it is moral. (premise 5)
[...]
n) Therefore child torture is immoral regardless of what anyone thinks.

I've made a start for you with all the agreed premises that sprung to my mind. Now fill in the blanks for me please.

[Goose]

Exactly. Because something which is true, is true by virtue of it being the case. It’s not true by virtue of who believes it or not. And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

Is it the case with child torture? Prove it.

Wow. Just, wow.

Should I really need to prove that? Are you now in some doubt as to whether it’s true? The simple fact you are now resorting to demanding I prove it’s true that child torture is immoral after you’ve spent pages telling us how you think it is speaks such volumes I don’t think it’s necessary to even continue. My work is done here.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 87 by Goose]



[center]

Blastcat gets his didactic on[/center]

Exactly. Because something which is true, is true by virtue of it being the case. It’s not true by virtue of who believes it or not. And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

Is it the case with child torture? Prove it.

Wow. Just, wow.

Should I really need to prove that? Are you now in some doubt as to whether it’s true? The simple fact you are now resorting to demanding I prove it’s true that child torture is immoral after you’ve spent pages telling us how you think it is speaks such volumes I don’t think it’s necessary to even continue. My work is done here.

Not so fast, Goose!! Blastcat the self appointed LOGIC police is here.
Not PROVING anything doesn't get your "work" done.

I think that both of you are wrong... Bust Nak asks a question that seems mal-formed, and you go off the deep end for him having asked it. I would ask him for a clarification here.

It's "wow" alright, but maybe not in the way you seem to think.

So....


[center]First off, yes, you DO have to "prove it".[/center]


If you are making the claim that some moral issue has an OBJECTIVE reality, you really do need to make your case.

IF Bust Nak wants to make a claim that some moral issue has only a SUBJECTIVE kind of reality, then he also has to make his case.

As far as I'm concerned ( I really don't care if morality is "objective" or not ) NEITHER of you guys made your case. You sure don't make it by simply claiming victory, anyway. You can do WAY better than that, right?

I think you guys were talking about the morality of "child abuse". Is it OBJECTIVELY wrong, or is it SUBJECTIVELY wrong?

That's the debate right here, right?

1. I've never fully understood what Bust Nak meant by "subjective". The best he ever gave was something like "the opposite of objective". I tried REAL hard to explain that it just didn't explain anything, but I don't think he got it. So, I gave UP trying. He calls himself a subjectivist, but I don't have a CLUE what he means by it.

2. Do you have a rigorous definition for what is "Objective" to morality? What would be your criteria for saying that it's objective? Popular?... "everyone thinks so".... what exactly? Maybe you have given a good definition... I might have missed it. But in any case, if you have NOT.. then we outsiders have NO idea what it is you guys are even TALKING about.

3. I read "Im right and youre wrong" over and over. Not very convincing. Make me care one way or the other, guys.

SO far, this aint doin it.
Let's say that your victory cry is a LITTLE premature.

Oh, and could we NOT use this horrible example? It just makes everyone get emotional. Try something a little less... HORRIFIC than child torture for heaven's sake. I suggest "stealing". Its WAY less emotionally charged, and as an added bonus, it's shorter to type.

[Bust Nak]

Wow. Just, wow.

Should I really need to prove that?

The alternatives are to retract your claim; or rephase it as your opinion, not something up for debate. Take your pick.

Are you now in some doubt as to whether it’s true?

Not just doubt, I am out right saying it's false - child torture is NOT objectively immoral.

The simple fact you are now resorting to demanding I prove it’s true that child torture is immoral after you’ve spent pages telling us how you think it is...

BUZZZZ, I am asking you to prove that "child torture is objectively immoral, that child torture is immoral regardless of what anyone thinks."

The simple fact that I've spent pages telling you that child torture is immoral, should have been more than enough to know that I was not demanding you to prove that part. Indeed, I left you to fill in the blanks with a template proof, ending with the conclusion "therefore child torture is immoral regardless of what anyone thinks" as opposed to the bare "therefore child torture is immoral."

There is zero room for miscommunication this time, by my reckoning.

...speaks such volumes I don’t think it’s necessary to even continue. My work is done here.

If you are happy with exiting the debate with a strawman argument, and quite a blatant one at that, that's up to you too.

I think you guys were talking about the morality of "child abuse". Is it OBJECTIVELY wrong, or is it SUBJECTIVELY wrong?

That's what the debate is supposed to be, it begun that way but as you can see, Goose have been trying to steer it towards is child abuse wrong or is it right; as if my confirmation that it is wrong somehow makes his case for objective morality.

I've never fully understood what Bust Nak meant by "subjective". The best he ever gave was something like "the opposite of objective". I tried REAL hard to explain that it just didn't explain anything, but I don't think he got it. So, I gave UP trying. He calls himself a subjectivist, but I don't have a CLUE what he means by it.

Don't you start, I gave you a definition - dependent on the mind, opposed to objective, independent from the mind, as well as explanations re: the distinction between opinions and facts, plus real life examples like food taste or other aesthetic in contrast to mathematical/logical absolutes.

Oh, and could we NOT use this horrible example? It just makes everyone get emotional.

He needs the example to be horrible because he was building a case around an appealing to emotional re: "Wow, just wow. Do I really need to prove child torture is immoral?" Quite transparent if you ask me.

[Goat]

I am agreeing that for something to be objectively true it is true regardless of who believes it be true.

Exactly. Because something which is true, is true by virtue of it being the case. It’s not true by virtue of who believes it or not. And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral.

The universe exists is objectively true. It would be true even if every mind believed it false; in contrast, child torture is wrong is not objectively true, but subjective, it is true in relation to who believes it be true, it would only be true if my mind believed it true.

This is incoherent at best and blatantly self contradictory at worst. If something is true it is true because it is the case. It's incoherent to say something would only be true if your mind believed it true. Whether your mind believes or not is irrelevant to something being true. Truth is not contingent upon your mind believing. It’s like saying it would only be true the universe exists if my mind believed it true. You just made the existence of the universe subjective.

As a side note, do you know anyone who actually believes it is not true that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral?

That's a case of miscommunication. I was affirming that "the universe exists" would be true even if every other mind believed it was not true.

Fair enough. And likewise torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral even if every other mind happens to believe it is not.

However, it is immoral, precisely because of what people think about it. There are people out there (who I do consider insane), that don't think it is wrong.