Opinions on Objective Morality?

[darkwarrior42]

@Quetzl: If you agree that morality can differ between species, you've already admitted there is no singular objective morality.... or are you arguing in favor of relative objective morality? That's not something I see very often, and I've never seen much difference between that and subjective morality.
@Spinner: Logic isn't based on assumptions, at least not in any of the crass ways that would be implied by your statement. "If P then Q, P, therefore Q" isn't based on assumptions, it's simply how reality works. The example you're referencing may have assumptions made as part of the decision, but the application of logic itself is not based on assumptions, but on an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
Edit: To be more clear, an example of logic itself failing would completely alter and shift the way we look at reality, and be quite possible one of the biggest discoveries of history. Assuming it's an actual failure of logic, and not a failure of humans to properly apply logic.

I have no idea whether there is actually any kind of objective morality, but ultimately I don't think it matters... because if it exists, we have no way of finding it or identifying it, so we just do the best we can with what we have.

(I also categorically reject the circular arguments which assert that it cannot exist without God, but we know that one or the other exists, therefore both exist, because those are statements of faith, not proof. Believe what you like, just don't present your faith-based assumptions as rational arguments which I should be swayed by.)

[Daymanmb]

There's no objective morality. Never was.

If only it was that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

[May90]

If only it was that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Isn't it essentially the same as the concept of natural selection, just in a more theoretical and abstract way?

[Daymanmb]

Isn't it essentially the same as the concept of natural selection, just in a more theoretical and abstract way?

First paragraph:
"Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior."

[Wildtree]

If only it was that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

I know..
here's another source
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Natural_law
it's shorter kept.
The opener summary should be of importance.

Natural law is the concept that some form of law exists naturally and universally, beyond the laws created by governments and societies, and beyond the observable laws of physics and mathematics.

That makes it a faith based idea, or philosophy.

[Daymanmb]

That makes it a faith based idea, or philosophy.

Of course its a philosophy, what did you think this discussion was about?

[spinner981]

One of the purposes of morals is to give us some kind of compass of behavior, to let us know when and what to do. Apparently, doing something that brings us a lot of pain intentionally without some kind of bigger purpose behind it is not something we tend to do. Morals that make us constantly act in a way that brings us a lot of pain can't exist forever; eventually there comes the crisis, when the person decides that living this way is no longer worth it, and changes their moral system in a way that rids them of that pain. When I talk about "happiness", I am aware of it being subjective, but I also think there are some inherent aspects of it that don't depend on the person, and one of them is low amount of regular pain a person experiences (pain both physical and emotional, of course). We all want to have as little pain in our lives as possible, unless we see a bigger purpose behind that pain that, again, ultimately leads us to relatively painless life.

It doesn't mean that there are objectively wrong morals, but it does mean that morals aren't exactly equivalent in terms of their practical manifestation. Some morals tend to lead people to misery and despair, others to somewhat calm and peaceful existence.

You are right that disliking pain does not define morals, but I think it puts certain restrictions on moral systems that can survive the test of time and competition with other systems.

There is a difference between what we should do and what we do do. Morals that bring us pain, or perhaps aren't fun, or that we don't like, doesn't prove that said morals are therefore not really moral.

Living a painless life has nothing to do with morality. Nor does living in misery or despair, or a claim and peaceful existence.

Once again, the popularity of a system of morals doesn't make it real. I don't believe in subjective morals. What you are saying only applies to subjective morality, not objective morals. Objective morality would exist even if people didn't like it, or would rather live in debauchery.

[May90]

First paragraph:
"Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior."

I mean, in terms of consequences, it might be just a different way to look at the same thing. In natural selection, behaviors that lead to success are encouraged, and those that lead to demise are discouraged; over time, the former start dominating the latter due to competition. Natural law concept, similarly, proclaims that certain rights/values are inherent and, hence, are bound to win the competition in the end.

[Wildtree]

Of course its a philosophy, what did you think this discussion was about?

It has to be pointed out, because it's been claimed here earlier to derive from Biology.

[kail]

Of course, you are right. I can't prove objective morality. But that doesn't mean that we default to a belief in subjective reality. That is just ridiculous. You also can't prove subjective morality (ie: the notion that objective morality doesn't exist).

But once again, many in this thread are claiming that subjective morality is definitely true, and have yet to show proof. I am claiming that I believe objective morality is true. How odd that I am the one being demanded to show proof, and not those who offhandedly dismiss objective morality with the reasoning of "It doesn't exist, because I said so."

Actually I can prove that morality is subjective. I believe that the death penalty is wrong and that abortions are OK. Someone else can believe the exact opposite and there is zero way to prove who is correct. That is textbook subjective outlook.

Until you can provide evidence on what is right or wrong it simply defaults to an opinion, not an objective fact. You even state several times that you believe in morality is subjective while acknowledging that it's impossible to prove as a fact. That is self-contradiction.

[spinner981]

Actually I can prove that morality is subjective. I believe that the death penalty is wrong and that abortions are OK. Someone else can believe the exact opposite and there is zero way to prove who is correct. That is textbook subjective outlook.

Until you can provide evidence on what is right or wrong it simply defaults to an opinion, not an objective fact. You even state several times that you believe in morality is subjective while acknowledging that it's impossible to prove as a fact. That is self-contradiction.

That only proves that you have opinions. Proving subjective morality would mean you have to disprove objective morality.

Being unable to prove something one way or the other certainly does not default to the notion that opinions supersede whatever may or may not be real.

Probably just a typo, but I believe morality is objective, and I acknowledge that I can't prove it as a fact. Once again, this is because really 'proving' something is absolutely nothing more than convincing somebody that something is true. I can't force you to believe anything, which means I technically can't 'prove' anything. No contradiction about it.

[May90]

There is a difference between what we should do and what we do do. Morals that bring us pain, or perhaps aren't fun, or that we don't like, doesn't prove that said morals are therefore not really moral.

Living a painless life has nothing to do with morality. Nor does living in misery or despair, or a claim and peaceful existence.

Once again, the popularity of a system of morals doesn't make it real. I don't believe in subjective morals. What you are saying only applies to subjective morality, not objective morals. Objective morality would exist even if people didn't like it, or would rather live in debauchery.

Well, of course not. But in practice, it leads to some morals being encouraged and other morals being discouraged naturally. Ultimately, the former survive and the latter perish. There is a reason that throughout history in almost every society that made it out of cave times murder is considered crime, both legal and moral: in the older times, only the societies that considered murder morally wrong survived, and the rest perished, because the idea of murder being morally okay is very impractical.

As for objective morality, whether it exists or not is a rhetorical question. Even if it exists, it is not clear how it can be found out. Morals are not part of the Universe, as far as we know; they are simply our way to interpret and to guide our behaviors. Take away humanity - and morals won't exist. Morals are intertwined with humanity (or, at least, with living beings), while them being objective would require them to exist even outside of scope of humanity - which is not the case, apparently.

[kail]

If you're conceding that math and physical laws are objective, then you must concede that morality is objective. Biology is a complicated math equation. Morality is an outcome of biology.

Awesome thinking right there!

[spinner981]

Well, of course not. But in practice, it leads to some morals being encouraged and other morals being discouraged naturally. Ultimately, the former survive and the latter perish. There is a reason that throughout history in almost every society that made it out of cave times murder is considered crime, both legal and moral: in the older times, only the societies that considered murder morally wrong survived, and the rest perished, because the idea of murder being morally okay is very impractical.

As for objective morality, whether it exists or not is a rhetorical question. Even if it exists, it is not clear how it can be found out. Morals are not part of the Universe, as far as we know; they are simply our way to interpret and to guide our behaviors. Take away humanity - and morals won't exist. Morals are intertwined with humanity (or, at least, with living beings), while them being objective would require them to exist even outside of scope of humanity - which is not the case, apparently.

I see a very different history of mankind. Those who conquered other nations and peoples survived. Those who killed to live survived. Those who refused to fight, or to kill their enemies, did not survive.

Whether it exists or not is a matter of reality. It's not simply a rhetorical question. I believe there is a way to know objective morality. Unfortunately that method falls under the area of "Totally untrue because reasons." for most people who believe morality is subjective. I don't believe in objective morality just because. I have reasons to believe, and I believe those reasons are what allows me to believe that it is true. The very premise of my belief in objective morality also explains how and why I can know what those objective morals are.

[Shadowferal]

Take away humanity - and morals won't exist. Morals are intertwined with humanity (or, at least, with living beings), while them being objective would require them to exist even outside of scope of humanity - which is not the case, apparently.

*nods*
It's all subject to maturing as time goes; learning from our mistakes as we grow as a whole. Or so I should hope.

[kail]

That only proves that you have opinions. Proving subjective morality would mean you have to disprove objective morality.

Exactly, opinions are subjective.

Being unable to prove something one way or the other certainly does not default to the notion that opinions supersede whatever may or may not be real.

Until you can prove something, it remains outside the realm of fact. I can't prove that unicorns exist, so they must exist right?

Probably just a typo, but I believe morality is objective, and I acknowledge that I can't prove it as a fact. Once again, this is because really 'proving' something is absolutely nothing more than convincing somebody that something is true. I can't force you to believe anything, which means I technically can't 'prove' anything. No contradiction about it.

Again, you are free to believe what you want. You can believe that morality is objective, that God exists, that rain comes from aliens. But those beliefs are not facts. You end up misusing the English term of objective when you acknowledge that objective morality isn't a fact.

objective
: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions

[May90]

I see a very different history of mankind. Those who conquered other nations and peoples survived. Those who killed to live survived. Those who refused to fight, or to kill their enemies, did not survive.

Whether it exists or not is a matter of reality. It's not simply a rhetorical question. I believe there is a way to know objective morality. Unfortunately that method falls under the area of "Totally untrue because reasons." for most people who believe morality is subjective. I don't believe in objective morality just because. I have reasons to believe, and I believe those reasons are what allows me to believe that it is true. The very premise of my belief in objective morality also explains how and why I can know what those objective morals are.

To become strong enough to be able to conquer other nations, you need to have certain values in the society allowing for that. A society that cannot put itself together, will never conquer anyone - it will be conquered instead.

Hmm, how would you propose getting to know objective morality, if it exists? How would you know that a certain moral idea is objective and not just appears that way to the observer?

[Aleksej89]

You can derive morality from nature. Emotions are a good start - and they evolved. We can gain better resolution on a moral answer by using our brains. To what end? Well, those of us alive now embody information selected over the course of millions of years for their propagative value.
Just going to requote this bit I just wrote for someone else.

There are no such things as emotions - it is just a fancy word we humans use to describe bio-chemical processes in our body.
Everything any of us has ever "felt" were just chemicals and electrical impulses.
Love, fear, anger, hatred, envy... it is all just a combination of instincts and body functions.

Moral is 100% subjective.
As the popular saying goes, a hero for some is a tyrant for others.
There is no event in the history of mankind that can be viewed through only one perspective, through only one "morality/opinion".

Claiming that morality can be an objective thing is as absurd as claiming that a millimeter is a longer unit of measurement than a centimeter.
Go across the entire planet and every human will have their own way of judging and interpreting the world and all the events in it.

Either something can be factually measured (like weight), or it is an abstract imaginary concept (like honor or morality).

[Torgent]

There are no such things as emotions - it is just a fancy word we humans use to describe bio-chemical processes in our body.
Everything any of us has ever "felt" were just chemicals and electrical impulses.
Love, fear, anger, hatred, envy... it is all just a combination of instincts and body functions.

Moral is 100% subjective.
As the popular saying goes, a hero for some is a tyrant for others.
There is no event in the history of mankind that can be viewed through only one perspective, through only one "morality/opinion".

Claiming that morality can be an objective thing is as absurd as claiming that a millimeter is a longer unit of measurement than a centimeter.
Go across the entire planet and every human will have their own way of judging and interpreting the world and all the events in it.

Quetzl will respond to this by saying "Yes, others have their moral codes, but they are wrong so not valid." This has been his response 3 times already this thread. He literally can't comprehend that people think differently than him.

[kail]

Quetzl will respond to this by saying "Yes, others have their moral codes, but they are wrong so not valid." This has been his response 3 times already this thread. He literally can't comprehend that people think differently than him.

I feel it's time for anyone else reading this thread should look up the meaning of "objective" and "subjective" before responding.

Both definitions have been butchered so far.