Opinions on Objective Morality?

[Mormolyce]

Yes, subjective morality is often used as an excuse for terrible behavior.

Not nearly as often as objective morality is :P

[Rothg]

I wholeheartedly believe morality is objective.

[Daymanmb]

There is no such thing as objective morality because morality is a code of behaviour internal to a human culture. Makes no sense outside of that context.



The people in culture A believe X is wrong in their culture. People in culture B believe X isn't wrong. To the people in A it's wrong, to the people in B it's not.

The universe doesn't care about X, because the universe is just a sea of quarks and energy.

Perversions like religion can taint reason.

[Underverse]

There is no such thing as objective morality because morality is a code of behaviour internal to a human culture. Makes no sense outside of that context.



The people in culture A believe X is wrong in their culture. People in culture B believe X isn't wrong. To the people in A it's wrong, to the people in B it's not.

The universe doesn't care about X, because the universe is just a sea of quarks and energy.

Yes yes, people have different opinions. That doesn't make everyone's opinion correct.

You're only the hundredth or so person to come into this thread with the exact same argument.

[zephid]

No, it doesn't. It proves that people have different opinions. But that doesn't mean these opinions have equal value.

´
And morals are opinions. Opinions about how people should behave. Opinions. That's it.

Morality is objective, but that doesn't mean it's easy to determine. In fact it's pretty hard to determine, given the sheer volume of information we need in order to make an informed moral decision.

Ok, so give me one example that proves that morality is objective.

[Underverse]

Not nearly as often as objective morality is :P

Sure. You have a bunch of religious fanatics (most of the world's population) pushing their sky-ghost bullshit. But that's not all there is to objective morality.

[Daymanmb]

Not everyone shares the same thought on the shape of earth, but it's an objective fact that it's round.

Its not an objective fact that we inherantly understand natural law, though. Its a possibility thats almost impossible to measure.

[zephid]

Not everyone shares the same thought on the shape of earth, but it's an objective fact that it's round.

That's because we can prove that it is round. The earth being round is not an opinion, it's a fact that can be proven. So far I've never seen proof of objective morality.

[Soeroah]

Science also changes. It's not subjective.

Morality evolves as we gain information. As science does. I think it's important to remember that the existence of conflicting views is not evidence for many truths.

Science isn't subjective, but belief in what is scientifically accurate is. That changes over time, as does the scientific consensus on a topic. One view can be considered correct and factual in one century, and outdated and naive in another. The science itself was objective, but the conclusion, what you get from putting in specific data, is subjective, because of biases or a simple lack of relevant information.

Science is an objective system that processes data we subjectively input. It's a tool. Likewise, morality is an individually objective concept that relies on our subjective viewpoints. In both cases, the end result is affected by subjectivity, and thus cannot be truly objective, even though the process to arrive at that conclusion might be objective.

The existence of conflicting views isn't evidence for many truths, it's evidence of many opinions. The difference between science and morality is that science is supposed to be based off hard, observable data that is true to everyone, while morality is based off what the individual decides is personally important to them, or the population decides is in the best interest of the whole.

My post wasn't meant to imply there's not an objectively best way to run a country or set a system of laws if you want to achieve a specific goal, but that the acceptance, trust and support of such a system- the morality- is subjective.

[JTHMRulez1]

1. You are an octopus
2. I disagree with you when you say you are not an octopus
3. Meaning it is now a fact that you are an octopus

Any problem if i use this in my signature?

[Underverse]

Tautological. "Moral decisions" are made on moral axioms and principles which are themselves subjective.

Not always. You can derive morality from biology, which is an outcome of math. Not very subjective there.

[Daymanmb]

´
And morals are opinions. Opinions about how people should behave. Opinions. That's it.


Ok, so give me one example that proves that morality is objective.

Youre not going to solve this argument with facts because you cant support your opinion on the matter nor can the other side because this is a philosophical conversation on Natural Law.

[Underverse]

´
And morals are opinions. Opinions about how people should behave. Opinions. That's it.

If that's how you want to define morality, then this is going to become a semantic argument. But I define morality as a system of decisionmaking.

Ok, so give me one example that proves that morality is objective.

An example and a proof are two different things.

An example of objective morality: baby slaughtering.

[Daymanmb]

That's because we can prove that it is round. The earth being round is not an opinion, it's a fact that can be proven. So far I've never seen proof of objective morality.

Nor disproof either, I assure you.

[zephid]

Yes yes, people have different opinions. That doesn't make everyone's opinion correct.

How do you determine who is correct when it comes to morals?

- - - Updated - - -

Nor disproof either, I assure you.

But the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. The claim is that objective morality exists, so prove it.

[Underverse]

Science isn't subjective, but belief in what is scientifically accurate is. That changes over time, as does the scientific consensus on a topic. One view can be considered correct and factual in one century, and outdated and naive in another. The science itself was objective, but the conclusion, what you get from putting in specific data, is subjective, because of biases or a simple lack of relevant information.

Yes, I think you're onto something here

Science is an objective system that processes data we subjectively input. It's a tool. Likewise, morality is an individually objective concept that relies on our subjective viewpoints. In both cases, the end result is affected by subjectivity, and thus cannot be truly objective, even though the process to arrive at that conclusion might be objective.

The existence of conflicting views isn't evidence for many truths, it's evidence of many opinions. The difference between science and morality is that science is supposed to be based off hard, observable data that is true to everyone, while morality is based off what the individual decides is personally important to them, or the population decides is in the best interest of the whole.

My post wasn't meant to imply there's not an objectively best way to run a country or set a system of laws if you want to achieve a specific goal, but that the acceptance, trust and support of such a system- the morality- is subjective.

The decisions we make are affected by the quantity of information we have. Part of this information is gathered through individual experiences, so in that perverted way one could argue that some subjectivity is introduced into the system. But that doesn't change the objectivity of the moral values we are trying to approximate.

[Sliske]

Any problem if i use this in my signature?

tbh its so fuckin incoherent and senseless you'd have to read this entire thread to get it lol

[Daymanmb]

But the burden of proof always lies with the one making the claim. The claim is that objective morality exists, so prove it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

"Collective unconscious (German: kollektives Unbewusstes), a term coined by Carl Jung, refers to structures of the unconscious mind which are shared among beings of the same species. According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts and by archetypes"

[Sliske]

What kind of shitty logic are you using? I didn't mean if you simple disagree with an opinion, I mean if you believe that they are always wrong in their opinion. (something thinks rape is okay, you say they're always wrong) then you're assuming it is a fact that rape is wrong because you say it's always wrong regardless of someone's opinion.

Why are you assuming I'm an octopus, then disagree when I say I'm not one, which means you're again assuming I am one. So, yes, if you assume I am an octopus then logically I am one. Do you know how logic works?

Away with you, octupus, go on, get!

[JTHMRulez1]

tbh its so fuckin incoherent and senseless you'd have to read this entire thread to get it lol

It's still the best example i've seen in my life.