Ojective Morality

I just heard an excellent argument for the existence of objective moral values, and I wanted to open it up for discussion.

Do you think moral values are objective, subjective, or nonexistent, or maybe even something else entirely?

You couldn't just reopen the dozen other threads we have on this subject? 

The common response is that morality is subjective, but I don't see how anyone could argue that killing innocent babies for fun is a good thing. I think it's better for society that some things be considered objectively wrong.

Subjective.

Disjunctive.

I just heard an excellent argument for the existence of objective moral values, and I wanted to open it up for discussion.

Do you think moral values are objective, subjective, or nonexistent, or maybe even something else entirely?

Morals are subjective but are constrained by objective truths.

I contend that morals are simply instincts. -- It instinctively feels wrong to jab a fork in my neighbor for no reason.
...Those instincts can vary greatly but still are governed by stable evolutionary/societal pressures. It is analogous to life varying greatly yet still adhering to fundamental evolutionary principles.

It is objective, though that does not mean a deity had to of created it.

(Consequentialism)

Quote from: Trekky0623 on March 15, 2011, 08:31:40 PM

I just heard an excellent argument for the existence of objective moral values, and I wanted to open it up for discussion.

Do you think moral values are objective, subjective, or nonexistent, or maybe even something else entirely?

Morals are subjective but are constrained by objective truths.

I contend that morals are simply instincts. -- It instinctively feels wrong to jab a fork in my neighbor for no reason.
...Those instincts can vary greatly but still are governed by stable evolutionary/societal pressures. It is analogous to life varying greatly yet still adhering to fundamental evolutionary principles.

This was similar to the argument I heard, though he argued that all morals were objective, and were governed by these "intuitions". Furthermore, he argued that all humans ultimately had really the same moral values. One example was brought up to refute this was slave owners in the 1800s, though he claimed that most people even then would claim that enslaving humans is wrong, but the definition of human changed from person to person. Also, there was no real claim as to the source of these objective moral values.

It was a strong argument, but I think I'm more of the feeling that morals don't really exist.

Subjective Morality is hard to deal with, since you can never claim another person is doing something wrong.

What's funny about consequentialism, is that it applies a very mathematical approach to judging the morality of an action. While this may be one of the best ways to evaluate it, especially in morally gray scenarios, it is still dependent on the assumption that some things are inherently good while others are bad. It can pit one life against another and come out even, but if morals are truly objective, we'd have to first demonstrate that a life has positive worth, even if we all take that for granted.

That's the real issue; dealing with these definitions of good and bad actions that just seem ituatuive but have no real logical reasoning. Even in consequentialism, you're generalizing things into good and bad without basis.

What's funny about consequentialism, is that it applies a very mathematical approach to judging the morality of an action. While this may be one of the best ways to evaluate it, especially in morally gray scenarios, it is still dependent on the assumption that some things are inherently good while others are bad. It can pit one life against another and come out even, but if morals are truly objective, we'd have to first demonstrate that a live has positive worth, even if we all take it for granted.

My approach to consequentialism is similar to your approach to objective morality, in that morality in of itself is instinctive. We already know it. However, I believe things like religious dogma can skew or suppress our moral reality, much like dogma can skew congruence.

I see Consequentialism as the "formula" you could say, of how you further decide moral decisions. Consider a war. Many monstrosities can occur doing one, and many immoral things happen. A war can be immoral locally. But when you look at it on a global scale and then consider the "net gain or loss" then you can realize if it really is moral or immoral.

So the practical analysis of an action's moral value can be given objectivity, but it is dependent on a preexisting moral framework. Excellent.

I believe we are very much in agreement, though I was simply answering to the definition of that foundational morality while you were answering to the definition of morality as a moral construct.

Disjunctive.

If you are serious, I'd be curious to hear you elaborate on your position.

Subjective.  Though I support having concrete morals in society for us to follow, I think that they're still subjective.

Non existant.  Nihilism all the way.

Objective to reduce suffering in the local group. The only distinction is to what extent you consider others to be a part of your local group.

The objective world definitely factors into morality, and is possibly grounded in it, but I think that the subject definitely has a role to play in any coherent ethical theory. People clearly have non-objective values, and those values are not always the same.

By far the best rational explanation for objective morality was Kant. I tend to think that morality exists, but not solely from reason or natural instinct. It seems that the argument against atheist morality is usually similar to: without an absolute standard, it must all be considered subjective. I think this is a fallacy. Looking for absolutes in this world seems like a futile project. Reason without emotion (instinct?) can be utterly cruel and devoid of humanity, but emotion without reason can't truly be civilized.

Furthermore, he argued that all humans ultimately had really the same moral values.

I believe he failed to consider sociopaths, psychopaths, and antisocials. Not all people feel empathy, remorse, guilt, etc.

Quote from: James on March 15, 2011, 10:39:19 PM

Disjunctive.

If you are serious, I'd be curious to hear you elaborate on your position.

The form of a moral query is essentially that of a disjunction. It offers two or more paths for action, it is the basic principle of inclusive eitherness. Morality; m-OR-ality.

By far the best rational explanation for objective morality was Kant.

I don't know, there are a lot of problems with Kant's categorical imperative. On the surface it seems reasonable, but it breaks down too often, especially because it's only superficially objective.

in case you're not familiar with Kant's categorical imperative, Bill Bailey sums it up here:

I've made many a statement regarding morals/morality; some here on this very forum.

It comes down to semantics. The only thing one can mistakenly perceive as objective morality would be that of a biological imperative. Outside of that, no such objective "morality" actually exists.

Rights and morals are social constructs. They hold no value in physical/objective reality; they're subjective. An action is simply, an action. Right, wrong, good and bad are classifications of those actions based on perspective.

They would have to be considered as defective, which is essentially the common wisdom.

Wisdom; lol.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on March 15, 2011, 10:45:44 PM

Furthermore, he argued that all humans ultimately had really the same moral values.

I believe he failed to consider sociopaths, psychopaths, and antisocials. Not all people feel empathy, remorse, guilt, etc.

They would have to be considered as defective, which is essentially the common wisdom.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on March 16, 2011, 09:54:51 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on March 15, 2011, 10:45:44 PM

Furthermore, he argued that all humans ultimately had really the same moral values.

I believe he failed to consider sociopaths, psychopaths, and antisocials. Not all people feel empathy, remorse, guilt, etc.

They would have to be considered as defective, which is essentially the common wisdom.

Exactly... It is the common opinion that deems morals to lie in accordance with benefiting the group. It sounded as if he was arguing for its objectivity by saying it was universal, not by saying it was very common.

The problem is that if morality is purely objective, you need an objective criteria to decide if someone is 'defective' or not. I've yet to see anyone present one that made sense to me. In my opinion morality emerges from but is not limited to the contingent world. To say that morality doesn't 'exist' is a totally reductionist position, and I know of no-one who holds it and yet lives by it.

I've yet to see anyone present one that made sense to me.

Same here.

To say that morality doesn't 'exist' is a totally reductionist position, and I know of no-one who holds it and yet lives by it.

It doesn't.  I hold that position and live by it.

It doesn't.  I hold that position and live by it.

Then why are you here, posting? Living, breathing etc.?


Once you want things (or don't want things), you have values. Once you act in order to attain those values, you have morality. I seriously doubt that you behave in life as though you are just a manifestation of atoms pinging. My guess is that there are people and/or things you care about, and whilst you might ostensibly believe it's all just pinging matter, you actually believe in many things which cannot be scientifically verified or falsified.

Quote from: Mr Pseudonym on March 16, 2011, 09:01:26 PM

It doesn't.  I hold that position and live by it.

Then why are you here, posting? Living, breathing etc.?


Once you want things (or don't want things), you have values. Once you act in order to attain those values, you have morality. I seriously doubt that you behave in life as though you are just a manifestation of atoms pinging. My guess is that there are people and/or things you care about, and whilst you might ostensibly believe it's all just pinging matter, you actually believe in many things which cannot be scientifically verified or falsified.

You are neither wrong nor right.

Then why are you here, posting?

Self-interest.

Living, breathing etc.?

Biological imperative.