Is Morality Objective?

[Real Korimyr #9]

Sorry, i'm not following you. I already addressed that just because people disagree, doesn't mean there isn't some truth to the matter in contention. It simply means we don't know who is or isn't correct.

I'm not saying that there isn't some truth to the matter, either. The problem lies in assuming that humans can learn the truth, when truth is not something that is learned at all but something that is made. I declare the truth, I define the truth, and I enforce the truth. Truth flows from the certainty of your convictions.

If you're talking from a practical approach, then I would argue that there are moral statements that people, by and large (not everyone, i am perfectly aware) would agree on. Rape = bad, for instance.

Sure, we would agree on them, but that doesn't make them more true. There are periods of time in which we would not all have agreed upon that statement, or when our definition of "rape" would have been so different from current that we would scarcely recognize it. If I believe that X, it doesn't matter that ten million people agree with me that X because X is already true. It wouldn't matter if ten million people insisted instead that !X, because ten million peoples' opinions are not more true than mine. X is true and anyone who argues !X is misguided.

If morality worked as you described, how many people would have to agree that rape was good to make you wrong?

 

[Cephus]

but if we go back to my slavery example from earlier, are you saying you think it was ok that we enslaved blacks just because society deemed it "morally acceptable" at that time? Because i certainly don't view it that way.

At the time it was acceptable and had you lived at the time, you almost certainly would have thought so too. You just have no historical perspective.

 

[the_recruit]

At the time it was acceptable and had you lived at the time, you almost certainly would have thought so too. You just have no historical perspective.

I don't dispute this. What i am saying is this: how do you feel (in 2011) about the slavery that was committed in the 1800s and earlier? Do you think our ancestors made a mistake by enslaving people or not?

 

[the_recruit]

I'm not saying that there isn't some truth to the matter, either. The problem lies in assuming that humans can learn the truth, when truth is not something that is learned at all but something that is made. I declare the truth, I define the truth, and I enforce the truth. Truth flows from the certainty of your convictions.

So what's your point? That we shouldn't legislate morality since we can never know whose morality is correct?

Sure, we would agree on them, but that doesn't make them more true. There are periods of time in which we would not all have agreed upon that statement, or when our definition of "rape" would have been so different from current that we would scarcely recognize it. If I believe that X, it doesn't matter that ten million people agree with me that X because X is already true. It wouldn't matter if ten million people insisted instead that !X, because ten million peoples' opinions are not more true than mine. X is true and anyone who argues !X is misguided.

If morality worked as you described, how many people would have to agree that rape was good to make you wrong?

I completely agree with this and this is exactly why morality is not subjective; It's not dependent on whether anybody or how many people believe it.

 

[Cephus]

I don't dispute this. What i am saying is this: how do you feel (in 2011) about the slavery that was committed in the 1800s and earlier? Do you think our ancestors made a mistake by enslaving people or not?

It doesn't matter how I feel about it today, it doesn't change what happened. Judging the past by the views of today is a pointless exercise, just as future generations judging what we do today by their own standards is pointless. Racism happened. It was neither objectively right or wrong because there's no such thing as objectively right or wrong. How you feel about it today has no bearing on what actually happened.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

So what's your point? That we shouldn't legislate morality since we can never know whose morality is correct?

I completely agree with this and this is exactly why morality is not subjective; It's not dependent on whether anybody or how many people believe it.

Are morals a social construct?

 

[Wake]

Many things are subjective. Sin, morals, reality, life, dreams, justice, etc...

You cannot scientifically prove what is morality.

It is a belief. Beliefs are never scientifically correct/absolute.

 

[Cephus]

Are morals a social construct?

Yep, I'm just waiting for him to declare that morality comes from an imaginary friend in the sky. :roll:

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Yep, I'm just waiting for him to declare that morality comes from an imaginary friend in the sky. :roll:

You and me both. :lamo

Too bad we will be thread banned for criticizing it

 

[EagleAye]

I just wonder how anyone can watch a lion pride being taken over by a new male (cubs of the previous male are summarily murdered) and still claim that morality is intrinsic. If nature doesn't create moral distinctions, then for me morality can only be a construct of the Human mind.

 

[EagleAye]

You and me both. :lamo

Too bad we will be thread banned for criticizing it

I'm with you guys.

 

[Alyssa]

if authority says 2+2=5, is it?

If the authority can print the math book ...

Essentially, yes. First of all, mathematics and morality do not compare. But even mathematics depend on agreement. Symbols and concepts must be agreed upon, and there are authorities who make those decisions. Morality itself can only be objective if there is an Objective Authority. To clarify my point, if one society says that a certain act is moral while another society says it is immoral, which society is correct?

So what's your point? That we shouldn't legislate morality since we can never know whose morality is correct?

Most morality should not be legislated, that is correct. The only exceptions are the laws necessary to prevent chaos such as laws against rape and murder, for example.

I completely agree with this and this is exactly why morality is not subjective; It's not dependent on whether anybody or how many people believe it.

Yes it is. Morality is basically a consensus of which behaviors society will tolerate and which behaviors will not be tolerated.

Are morals a social construct?

Yes. They are.

 

[Jerry]

When discussing a different issues this question was raised.

I think morality is subjective, because morality is not based on tangible things, etc.

Do you know of any bit of morality that is objective?

At their core, morals are biological imperatives. The further out from the core, into the peripheral you go, the more subjective morals become.

 

[Morality Games]

When discussing a different issues this question was raised.

I think morality is subjective, because morality is not based on tangible things, etc.

Do you know of any bit of morality that is objective?

Generally morally appropriate actions are dictated by the nature of a person's relationships to other people, like family, friends, neighbors, the community, and even enemies. For example, if a son is dependent on his parents' love and resources, then he owes them love and any care he can give them, particularly in their old age.

Essentially, a moral person is one who is aware of his material and psychological debts to other creatures (humans especially, but also animals), whether they be individuals or groups, and endeavors to repay them for the benefits he has derived from the relationship that grew between them.

'Evil' is when temptations, including power and the enjoyment of power, cause someone to forget their debts and behave only in their self-interest; that is, a bad son mooches off his parents's love and affection without appreciating or reciprocating all of the good they have done him from his youth onward, frequently voicing negative opinions of them for delusional reasons (aka, blowing minor offenses done to him in his youth out of a proportion and refusing to take a balanced perception of the good they have done him).

A good parent is aware of the benefits they have derived from raising children (usually spiritual and psychological, but sometimes also material) and good children are aware of the attention and help they have received from their parents, and both try to treat the other with the respect due to their respective positions.

It's also worth noting, that even though the reality of our relationships sometimes falls short of the ideal (that is, certain limitations of the spirit prevent people from being ideal parents and children), we should try to act as though we have always enjoyed the ideal, in the hopes that eventually our additional efforts will effect positive changes in that direction.

Essentially, yes. First of all, mathematics and morality do not compare. But even mathematics depend on agreement. Symbols and concepts must be agreed upon, and there are authorities who make those decisions. Morality itself can only be objective if there is an Objective Authority. To clarify my point, if one society says that a certain act is moral while another society says it is immoral, which society is correct?

The more correct society is the one who orders human relationships appropriately, according to the logic of what a relationship requires to be a healthy one of its kind.

 

[the_recruit]

It doesn't matter how I feel about it today, it doesn't change what happened. Judging the past by the views of today is a pointless exercise, just as future generations judging what we do today by their own standards is pointless. Racism happened.

You're just being silly. Of course I don't think how we feel about it today is going to change what happened. I'm not bringing this up in hopes somehow time will magically go backwards and slavery will have never happened. Stop dodging my questions with this bs.

It was neither objectively right or wrong because there's no such thing as objectively right or wrong.

good god this is getting painful. This is a simple yes or no question. Do you or do you not agree with the following statement: "I believe our ancestors should not have enslaved blacks".

How you feel about it today has no bearing on what actually happened.

Yes. We know. Thanks for clarifying that though. Again.

 

[the_recruit]

You and me both. :lamo

Too bad we will be thread banned for criticizing it

hahhahahaha. you two just have me completely figured out, don'tcha? :roll:

 

[zgoldsmith23]

hahhahahaha. you two just have me completely figured out, don'tcha? :roll:

How does that quote imply we had "figured you out?"

 

[the_recruit]

How does that quote imply we had "figured you out?"

are you being deliberately dense?

you and cephus seem to think you know that i believe in god.

 

[Alyssa]

Generally morally appropriate actions are dictated by the nature of a person's relationships to other people, like family, friends, neighbors, the community, and even enemies. For example, if a son is dependent on his parents' love and resources, then he owes them love and any care he can give them, particularly in their old age.

Essentially, a moral person is one who is aware of his material and psychological debts to other creatures (humans especially, but also animals), whether they be individuals or groups, and endeavors to repay them for the benefits he has derived from the relationship that grew between them.

'Evil' is when temptations, including power and the enjoyment of power, cause someone to forget their debts and behave only in their self-interest; that is, a bad son mooches off his parents's love and affection without appreciating or reciprocating all of the good they have done him from his youth onward, frequently voicing negative opinions of them for delusional reasons (aka, blowing minor offenses done to him in his youth out of a proportion and refusing to take a balanced perception of the good they have done him).

A good parent is aware of the benefits they have derived from raising children (usually spiritual and psychological, but sometimes also material) and good children are aware of the attention and help they have received from their parents, and both try to treat the other with the respect due to their respective positions.

It's also worth noting, that even though the reality of our relationships sometimes falls short of the ideal (that is, certain limitations of the spirit prevent people from being ideal parents and children), we should try to act as though we have always enjoyed the ideal, in the hopes that eventually our additional efforts will effect positive changes in that direction.



The more correct society is the one who orders human relationships appropriately, according to the logic of what a relationship requires to be a healthy one of its kind.

I like what you have said here. I think of my own family in this instance. Most of them were non existent in my life, so I feel that I owe them nothing. In fact, I feel like I owe almost no one anything at all. However, there are a few people I am indebted to, and I feel that I do focus too much on those who have wronged me. Your perspective seems balanced and reasonable.

 

[the_recruit]

Essentially, yes. First of all, mathematics and morality do not compare. But even mathematics depend on agreement. Symbols and concepts must be agreed upon, and there are authorities who make those decisions.

Oh come on, Ev. I wasn't talking about semantics or symbology and you know it. Of course a government can establish a different symbology and make everybody represent the quantity you and I know as "two" with the symbol % if they want. That's not what I was asking and you know it.

I mean, you have an orwell quote in your sig for crissakes. You think that's what orwell meant in 1984 with the 2+2=5 shtick? You think orwell was saying the government was just enforcing a new symbology? Of course not (or, if you think that's what he meant, then i'm sorry to say but 1984 went right over your head) Come on, ev. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue with this symbology crap just to be combative. Stop it.

You know exactly what I meant when I asked that question and you know the answer is "no". If I have "2" (you and I both know what that "2" means so don't be obtuse about it) apples and johnny gives me 2 more, I will have 4. Even if the government tries to lie and say, nope, taking 2 apples and then adding 2 more gives you 5 apples, not 4 apples. It is a lie - it's not true. I will still only have 4 apples regardless of what the gubmint says. I mean, this is EXACTLY the point Orwell was making. So I know you understand this and I'm not going to argue about this anymore - it's detracting from the real discussion here. The question was intended to be rhetorical and the answer self-evident.

Morality itself can only be objective if there is an Objective Authority.

I challenge you to prove this. This is a common assertion in these debates. I disagree. I see no reason why there cannot exist moral truths without a god any more than any other truths can exist without a god.

To clarify my point, if one society says that a certain act is moral while another society says it is immoral, which society is correct?

Well, I don't think there is any way to know. Because of the is-ought problem, i don't believe normative statements are derivable through deductive reasoning. So you can never know (here i'm using "know" in the strictest philosophical sense) whether something is right or wrong in the same sense that you can "know" certain mathematical statements, for instance.

Most morality should not be legislated, that is correct. The only exceptions are the laws necessary to prevent chaos such as laws against rape and murder, for example.

Well, this is an arbitrary distinction. Postulating that "we should prevent chaos" is as much of a normative statement as any other. Why is it acceptable to legislate that particular moral statement?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So what's your point? That we shouldn't legislate morality since we can never know whose morality is correct?

Nope. Leave that to the libertarians. I'm saying that I'm going to do whatever the Hell I think is right regardless of what anyone else says, and that everyone else should do the same up to and including doing whatever it takes-- including passing and enforcing laws-- to stop people from doing what they think is wrong. Only people are moral agents; the law is just a weapon to be wielded.

I completely agree with this and this is exactly why morality is not subjective; It's not dependent on whether anybody or how many people believe it.

Subjective doesn't mean that it's determined by public opinion. Subjective only means that its value differs from person to person and that there is no objective standard against which we can compare it.

 

[WI Crippler]

Anything that is objective is only data. For example, an objective measurement of something would say " in the year 2006, 259 people were put to death in the united states under the death penalty". There is no determination of the morality of the death penalty.

Morality is subjective. It is not data (even though it uses interpretations of data to draw conclusions/make statements) that is devoid of judgement. However, unless you are an Ayn Rand slit licker, subjectivity is not necessarily worse than objectivity. The two go together, and I would argue that subjectivity may be more important because it is our interpretation of the data and stimuli that we receive that makes us different than the computer I am typing this on.

 

[Cephus]

You and me both. :lamo

Too bad we will be thread banned for criticizing it

If so, only proving how absurdly biased the moderation here is.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I think morality is subjective, but also communal.

This is contradictory. A communal aspect makes it objective.

 

[Cephus]

This is contradictory. A communal aspect makes it objective.

No, objective means it is true regardless of what anyone believes. It does not require the assent of anyone, be it one, a million, or all, to be factually true. Morality certainly does not fit into that definition.