Do you believe in objective morality?

[Nomad4Ever]

Philosophy forum is a little quite and I've been interested in discussing these ideas for a while. I don't want to bore people or make this discussion inaccessible by weighing it down with technical terms, but there are a few broad concepts that should be defined.

Deontology is the idea that an action is moral based on a certain set of rules. This is a broad category, but generally this ethical framework would say that murder is bad because murder is bad. It is inherently, transcendentally immoral.

The main opposing ethical framework is the broad category teleology, which includes things like consequential and utilitarianism. Someone who ascribes to this framework would argue murder is bad because it harms society, or it violates some axiomatic value. It's basically the concept that "bad" and "good" are socially constructed concepts like "tall" and "short".

Is this something you've thought about? Do you have a "moral framework" or just go along with what feels right?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Does it exist?

I think so.

Are humans fully capable of understanding it this side of heaven?

Probably not.

 

[aociswundumho]

If everyone, and I mean virtually everyone, agrees that some specific action is morally wrong, then how can it be morally subjective?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Does it exist?

I think so.

Are humans fully capable of understanding it this side of heaven?

Probably not.

The reason I don't like the idea of objective morality is it seems to me like a really inconsistent way at arriving at moral answers.

For example, you assert that murder is moral. For arguments sake I'm going to claim that murder is moral and good. I claim this is an objective fact that exists outside of the human mind. Why am I wrong?

 

[Slartibartfast]

The reason I don't like the idea of objective morality is it seems to me like a really inconsistent way at arriving at moral answers.

For example, you assert that murder is moral. For arguments sake I'm going to claim that murder is moral and good. I claim this is an objective fact that exists outside of the human mind. Why am I wrong?

That’s why I don’t think people are capable of understanding it.

People who tend to claim objective morality tend to have stances that contradict one another

 

[Greenbeard]

It seems fairly clear which sorts of human actions the universe takes interest in regulating (e.g., how high one can jump in Earth gravity) and which sorts of actions the universe takes absolutely no interest in at all (e.g., cheating on your spouse).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In a normal world, people would be deriding this kind ⬆⬆⬆ of "faculty lounge windyfoggery" instead of critical race theory and enhanced political correctness.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

That’s why I don’t think people are capable of understanding it.

People who tend to claim objective morality tend to have stances that contradict one another

Even if I conceded it existed, but as you claim it is too removed from us to be useful in arriving at answers to what is/isn't moral, why even use that framework? It doesn't seem very useful.

 

[BirdinHand]

Are there some topics which I think all people should find morally repugnant? Yes.


There is a lot of grey area in all those topics though.


Murder? Yes, objectively killing another person should be morally repugnant. But…what about self-defense? What about if the person being killed is abusive, criminal…what about assisted suicide for the terminally ill?


I’ve found there are very few things in life that are truly black/white. Human life is really a lot of shades of grey and navigating those shades of grey as best we can.

 

[Felis Leo]

Philosophy forum is a little quite and I've been interested in discussing these ideas for a while. I don't want to bore people or make this discussion inaccessible by weighing it down with technical terms, but there are a few broad concepts that should be defined.

Deontology is the idea that an action is moral based on a certain set of rules. This is a broad category, but generally this ethical framework would say that murder is bad because murder is bad. It is inherently, transcendentally immoral.

The main opposing ethical framework is the broad category teleology, which includes things like consequential and utilitarianism. Someone who ascribes to this framework would argue murder is bad because it harms society, or it violates some axiomatic value. It's basically the concept that "bad" and "good" are socially constructed concepts like "tall" and "short".

Is this something you've thought about? Do you have a "moral framework" or just go along with what feels right?

Yes. It is something I have thought about deeply. I think part of the human condition is slowly brushing away the darkness and ignorance that has kept most of humanity from understanding true goodness and moral decency.

For example, at one time nearly all societies had some form of debt slavery or chattel slavery (sometimes both). I do not think the abolition of slavery came about as a the result of some particular group of humans having some idiosyncratic distaste for the practice which eventually spread through conquest, but through the slow recognition of the common humanity shared among all peoples. Slavery has now gone from a near universally-accepted practice practice to a universally-reviled practice, with only a handful of places on Earth where one can openly buy and sell other human beings (like Mauritania). That makes me think that an objective morality is extant and not merely subjective.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

If everyone, and I mean virtually everyone, agrees that some specific action is morally wrong, then how can it be morally subjective?

At one point disobeying the king was seen as an act against God, as kings were seen as ruling from divine right. Or another example, slavery was considered moral.

Are you a moral relativist?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Even if I conceded it existed, but as you claim it is too removed from us to be useful in arriving at answers to what is/isn't moral, why even use that framework? It doesn't seem very useful.

Perfect morality requires perfect knowledge of how one’s choices and actions affect the world or else how would you perform perfect actions in situations that can often be quite unique in their context and situational aspects. It also means one is perfect at making those choices and actions no matter how much discomfort one might be in.

Nobody has perfect knowledge or perfect willpower. Well, except one guy.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Murder? Yes, objectively killing another person should be morally repugnant. But…what about self-defense? What about if the person being killed is abusive, criminal…what about assisted suicide for the terminally ill?

I think you misunderstand the question. I'm not asking if you think every action exists only in a morally black and white way. I'm asking if you think the answer to whether an action is moral is socially constructed or some sort of universal law of the universe.

It's kind of like asking if the concept of a house exists without humans. If a solar flare wiped out all life, does the concept of a house still exist or is it just a organized collection of matter?

 

[aociswundumho]

At one point disobeying the king was seen as an act against God, as kings were seen as ruling from divine right. Or another example, slavery was considered moral.

Did everyone consider slavery moral?

Are you a moral relativist?

No.

 

[BirdinHand]

I think you misunderstand the question. I'm not asking if you think every action exists only in a morally black and white way. I'm asking if you think the answer to whether an action is moral is socially constructed or some sort of universal law of the universe.

It's kind of like asking if the concept of a house exists without humans. If a solar flare wiped out all life, does the concept of a house still exist or is it just a organized collection of matter?

Ah, my fault and I did misunderstand.

Take humans out of the equation then. Let’s look at the animal kingdom.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

That makes me think that an objective morality is extant and not merely subjective.

So I guess I would ask you the same question as tacomancer. If you claim murder is inherently wrong, and I claim murder is inherently morally good, how do you resolve that conflict?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Did everyone consider slavery moral?

Yes. But even if you don't believe that the question as a hypothetical is just as valid. If 100% of people agreed that slavery was ethically and morally good, would that make it good in your view?

 

[aociswundumho]

I'm asking if you think the answer to whether an action is moral is socially constructed or some sort of universal law of the universe.

Neither, I think our sense of morality is innate, like a sixth sense.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes. It is something I have thought about deeply. I think part of the human condition is slowly brushing away the darkness and ignorance that has kept most of humanity from understanding true goodness and moral decency.

For example, at one time nearly all societies had some form of debt slavery or chattel slavery (sometimes both). I do not think the abolition of slavery came about as a the result of some particular group of humans having some idiosyncratic distaste for the practice which eventually spread through conquest, but through the slow recognition of the common humanity shared among all peoples. Slavery has now gone from a near universally-accepted practice practice to a universally-reviled practice, with only a handful of places on Earth where one can openly buy and sell other human beings (like Mauritania). That makes me think that an objective morality is extant and not merely subjective.

How does near-universal acceptance of a practice that violates an objective standard come about in your view? For me, drastic swings in norms would be a clear sign of subjectivity so I'm curious how you draw the opposite conclusion from an example like that.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yes.

No, at the very least, I'm pretty sure the slaves themselves disagreed.

But even if you don't believe that the question as a hypothetical is just as valid. If 100% of people agreed that slavery was ethically and morally good, would that make it good in your view?

No, because they wouldn't, which is sorta my point.

 

[MaryP]

Philosophy forum is a little quite and I've been interested in discussing these ideas for a while. I don't want to bore people or make this discussion inaccessible by weighing it down with technical terms, but there are a few broad concepts that should be defined.

Deontology is the idea that an action is moral based on a certain set of rules. This is a broad category, but generally this ethical framework would say that murder is bad because murder is bad. It is inherently, transcendentally immoral.

The main opposing ethical framework is the broad category teleology, which includes things like consequential and utilitarianism. Someone who ascribes to this framework would argue murder is bad because it harms society, or it violates some axiomatic value. It's basically the concept that "bad" and "good" are socially constructed concepts like "tall" and "short".

Is this something you've thought about? Do you have a "moral framework" or just go along with what feels right?

Emotionally, I like the idea of Perfect Good, but I don't think there is any example of that in reality. It is a concept developed in our mind.
In the real world, yin/yang rules. It's a cosmic dance of opposing forces that are perpetually creating and destroying, moving and stopping, and that pretty much applies to human interactions, as well. Dualism is the attempt to isolate one half from the other, but in reality they exist together, always have and always will.

So the judgment of good and bad proceeds from our brains and is usually based on the Golden Rule. We frown on murder because we would prefer not to be murdered. We say no stealing because we don't want someone taking our stuff. I had a philosophy professor who insisted that would lead me to being a Nazi, but I haven't built an oven yet.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Neither, I think our sense of morality is innate, like a sixth sense.

I think some people's sixth sense might be broken then. But you think it morality is...biologically driven then?

No, because they wouldn't, which is sorta my point.

That seems a little tautological. If you think that the consensus could never arrive at an immoral conclusion, you seem to be the one decided what is moral. How do you know everyone wouldn't decide murder is good? You've decided they wouldn't because murder is bad, and the group would never come to an immoral conclusion. But you've already come to a conclusion by assuming murder is bad.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Neither deontology nor teleology are objectively arrived at. There are certain behaviors that are almost universally recognized as bad among human societies - murder, rape, incest, theft, lying. But there is tremendous variation in the details, and historically the moral codes tended to be applied intra-group rather than inter-group. In other words, you can't do this inside your tribe but knock yourself out with strangers.

People arguing for the existence of God have sometimes made the moral argument, namely that God must exist because without a perfect divine being to tell us what is right and wrong there can be no objective morality. The problem is that they don't explain why an objective morality is necessary and, more crucially, how in the face of literally thousands of religious traditions, an individual is supposed to divine (pun intended) which one is correct? In other words, anyone selecting a religious belief does so on subjective grounds, and therefore their choice of an objective moral code is a subjective one.

My conclusion is that if there some truly objective morality, we cannot discern it.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Take humans out of the equation then. Let’s look at the animal kingdom.

What conclusion do you draw from that? An appeal to nature seems inherently fallacious to me.

 

[BirdinHand]

What conclusion do you draw from that? An appeal to nature seems inherently fallacious to me.

It was in response to

I think you misunderstand the question. I'm not asking if you think every action exists only in a morally black and white way. I'm asking if you think the answer to whether an action is moral is socially constructed or some sort of universal law of the universe.

It's kind of like asking if the concept of a house exists without humans. If a solar flare wiped out all life, does the concept of a house still exist or is it just a organized collection of matter?