Does morality exist?

[Ender]

a belief that morality exists is fundamental to all human behavior in all cultures. If morality didn’t exist, it is *very improbable *that human beings were in error in thinking to it did exist.

A belief that laws are necessary to regulate behavior is also fundamental to all human behavior in all cultures and while we all know that laws exist we also know that all laws are artificial constructs and that there is no body of objective laws that exists independent of societies.

The “must” and “must not” in game-rules are rules specifiying how to win a game.

This is absolutely untrue. The command that “you shall not steal” is exactly analogous to “you shall not ground your club in a hazard.” It has nothing to do with winning but how the game of golf - like the game of life - is to be played

Moral rules specify how to behave morally.

Since we haven’t determined that morality exists the most you can say is that moral rules specify how one is to behave in different situations. This is exactly what the rules of golf specify. You assume that since morality exists this comparison is silly but you still haven’t conceptually distinguished game rules from moral rules without assuming morality exists.

The distinction is shown by the notions contained in moral rules that are **not **contained in game rules, such as “blameworthiness, praiseworthiness, guilt, innocence.”

This is what I mean. You try here to show that morality exists because we use words with moral connotations - which is nothing more than “morality exists because we have created words that convey a meaning which we call moral.” Your conclusion that morality is true is based on the assumption that morality exists.

Further, we don’t lock people up in jail, find them “guilty,” reprimand them, or consider them personally blameworthy when they break the rules in a game.

True, but neither do we do this when they break moral rules. We do it when they break laws, which I think we should be able to agree don’t exist in any objective sense.

You’re just being difficult.

What is coming out is the difficulty of defending the position you have taken.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

Ender, you are being difficult. It’s fine to defend your position, but you need to make a real effort to try to understand why it might be wrong. Every time you make an assertion you need to ask yourself: is this true? is this relevant? Every time you pose a ‘difficult’ question, you need to ask yourself: do I already know the answer to this question? is it worth asking?

A belief that laws are necessary to regulate behavior is also fundamental to all human behavior in all cultures and while we all know that laws exist we also know that all laws are artificial constructs and that there is no body of objective laws that exists independent of societies.

Do we know this? I don’t know this. Do you? How?

This is absolutely untrue. The command that “you shall not steal” is exactly analogous to “you shall not ground your club in a hazard.” It has nothing to do with winning but how the game of golf - like the game of life - is to be played

So what? Morality is concerned with the rules for the ‘game of life,’ i.e., they apply to everything we do and spell out for us, in general terms, what it is to live well. What’s the problem?

Since we haven’t determined that morality exists…

But we don’t need to, that’s not how the game of making existential assertions works. We are describing what morality is like, how it works. If there is something like that, that works as we say it does, then morality exists. That’s *how *we determine that morality exists. How else would we do it? Seriously: how? You can avoid this kind of question as long as you like, but until you confront it, your objections will remain entirely without substance.

Syntax wrote:
Further, we don’t lock people up in jail, find them “guilty,” reprimand them, or consider them personally blameworthy when they break the rules in a game.

Ender replied:
True, but neither do we do this when they break moral rules. We do it when they break laws, which I think we should be able to agree don’t exist in any objective sense.
What is coming out is the difficulty of defending the position you have taken.

You’d know very well **this **isn’t true, Ender, if you bothered to think about it for 3 seconds. Tell me you can see that?

Also, Syntax’s claim is *not *necessarily true: game-rule-breakers are often reprimanded and considered personally blameworthy - which is just to say that it is usually immoral to intentionally break the rules of any game; it’s called cheating.

 

[Betterave]

If objectivity is a subjective construct it wouldn’t be objectivity. You’re simply slipping in the concept of subjectivity to start with. The fact that a mind with various inclinations and experiences which appeal to it does not exclude it from taking part in the objectivity of the universe (concerning ought or is). Thus, the idea is not “subjective leading to objective” or “objective founded on the subjective” but it is the “subjective taking part in the objective.”

Okay, we can re-phrase according to your suggestion:

If the subject takes part in the objective so as to conceive the ‘objectivity’ of its object, then ‘objectivity’ will be found wherever subjectivity has conceived it - the ‘where is it?’ will be an a posteriori question, will it not?

 

[Leela]

Ender, you are being difficult. It’s fine to defend your position, but you need to make a real effort to try to understand why it might be wrong. Every time you make an assertion you need to ask yourself: is this true? is this relevant? Every time you pose a ‘difficult’ question, you need to ask yourself: do I already know the answer to this question? is it worth asking?

I think the problem with this thread runs even deeper. He is doubting the assertion that morality exists based on a premise that he does not accept–that God does not exist-- while maintaing the asumption that God is the source of all possible notions of morality.

I’ve come to realize that arguing with Ender about this is as pointless as it would be to argue with him about the question, if pigs could fly, how high would they go? Hypothetical pigs can do whatever you want them to do, and hypothetical notions of morality can be impossible to you if you simply insist that they are, which is all Ender has done.

 

[Syntax]

A belief that laws are necessary to regulate behavior is also fundamental to all human behavior in all cultures and while we all know that laws exist we also know that all laws are artificial constructs and that there is no body of objective laws that exists independent of societies.

How is this a counterexample to the thesis that morality exists?

This is absolutely untrue. The command that “you shall not steal” is exactly analogous to “you shall not ground your club in a hazard.” It has nothing to do with winning but how the game of golf - like the game of life - is to be played

No it’s not the same. You are just stipulating that it is. Then burden of proof is no more on me to show a distinction (which I have) and you to show they are the same (which you have not.) Your argument performs the fallacy of equivocation on the word “must.”

Since we haven’t determined that morality exists the most you can say is that moral rules specify how one is to behave in different situations. This is exactly what the rules of golf specify. You assume that since morality exists this comparison is silly but you still haven’t conceptually distinguished game rules from moral rules without assuming morality exists.

When we lock someone up in jail for theft or put someone on trial for embezzlement, I am presupposing that this is distinguishable from a person taking time out because of too many basketball fouls? I don’t think so.

This is what I mean. You try here to show that morality exists because we use words with moral connotations - which is nothing more than “morality exists because we have created words that convey a meaning which we call moral.” Your conclusion that morality is true is based on the assumption that morality exists.

No, these words have moral meanings we can distinguish from non-moral meanings. This is not presupposing morality exists at all. This is to make semantic distinctions which you refuse to acknowledge are even there!

True, but neither do we do this when they break moral rules. We do it when they break laws, which I think we should be able to agree don’t exist in any objective sense. What is coming out is the difficulty of defending the position you have taken.

The burden of proof is no more on me for showing morality exists than it is on you for showing that it doesn’t exist. And you have offered no positive arguments of your own that morality doesn’t exist. All you’ve done is play Mr. Skeptic toward the realist position, treating all my arguments as if they were logical demonstrations which they are not. So where are your own positive arguments Ender? You just try to give one, and I’ll play the same skeptical games on your own position.