How do I prove objective morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Senyorico
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oceans of ink have been spilled over this topic for the past century and a half (that I know of). I’ll try to find a few sources to cite for reference but I doubt merely a forum post will brush the surface of arguments.
 
Start at the top. What do you mean by ‘objective’ and ‘morality’.

Both terms are used in diverse ways even in philosophy.
 
The Thomist approach would involve establishing the analogy of being and the convertibility of being and goodness. Then we’d need to also demonstrate the distinction between existence and essence. From there it’s a short skip and a hop to teleology and natural law. 😉

Doing all that in this topic is a big ask, but those are some big key points if you’re an Aristotlean.
 
Objective, meaning universal and only one standard. Morality, defining right or wrong.
 
So a universal standard morality can come in lots of ways, ways that are definitely not “Catholic.” From a technical point of view, meta-ethical programs of relativism (which is also a vague term) can be objective.
 
Rhubarb said:
So a universal standard morality can come in lots of ways, ways that are definitely not “Catholic.” From a technical point of view, meta-ethical programs of relativism (which is also a vague term) can be objective.
Click to expand...
Without distracting from the original question as much, do you have any sources on how any program of relativism can be objective?
 
Because we all agree there are certain things which are simply evil to do. Regardless of whether you are an atheist or a devout religious person we all agree torturing babies for fun is not good, but rather something very evil to do.

How could we all agree on such things without objective morality? Otherwise then evil and good become little more than personal opinion.
 
Wesrock said:
Without distracting from the original question as much, do you have any sources on how any program of relativism can be objective?
Click to expand...
Will you accept my degree in philosophy? “Relativism” is one of those words that philosophers and rhetorists throw about in their papers, and change the meaning to suit what they’re talking about. I’m fair certain it isn’t the same sort of relativism that people think of colloquially.

In terms of meta-ethics, ‘relativism’ of various kinds (in broad strokes) is the view that the truth-values of moral statements are made true or false by various things. For instance - a cultural relativist program would argue that the truth-value of moral statements depends upon the culture’s mores. But, that then becomes the universal standard - because we’re talking the truth-value of statements. “In place T, X is true/false” That is an ‘objective’ statement. And “the truth of moral statements depend on Y” is an objective statement. The calculus about whether something is moral or not is objective. Even if it can change, depending on what Y is. (This is very broad strokes, and pretty vague but I’m trying not to get too deep into the weeds)

Of course, being this is philosophy. Anyone can think this conception of the subjective/objective divide as I describe it isn’t quite right and I’m off the mark.
 
Last edited:
Let me take another pass at this, I think I went off-topic.

Seems to me if you want to prove an objective morality, you need to establish
  1. What the morality is based on - what makes things right or wrong
  2. How do we know the above? How can we be sure?
But most importantly 3. Is this proof convincing?

There are a lot of proofs out there that are valid, and, arguably sound. But they aren’t convincing.
 
Rhubarb said:
“In place T, X is true/false” That is an ‘objective’ statement. And "the truth of moral
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I read the whole post, just quoting this part because I had a point/follow up.

I agree that with the condition it is an objective statement. But dropping the condition, “x is true/false” is not objective or universal, which is what I believe the OP is looking for. The question is whether “x is true/false” is universal and mind-independent. At least, that’s how I understand his question.
 
Last edited:
I agree, that’s why when people use terms ‘objective’ and ‘relative’, I ask what they mean by the terms. It helps avoid talking past.
 
The first portion of this article breaks down the fundamental flaws of moral relativism, using the abortion issue as an example.
https://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/klsdorf1.htm
On a recent edition of the television show Politically Incorrect, super model Kathy Ireland gave a carefully reasoned scientific and philosophic defense of the pro-life position. The show’s host, Bill Maher, shot back with, “Kathy, that’s just your view.”

What’s wrong with this response? Maher was confusing a moral claim with a preference claim.
Click to expand...
 
Criminal law.

Yeah, I know it’s not scientific, but it is a philosophy of sorts.

As to faith, if you are looking for “proof” you will be disappointed, as it is in large part reason, but remains a “faith.”
 
Last edited:
I got into a debate with this gay dude about whether or not right and wrong exist. He argued that there isn’t absolute right or wrong and that everybody should be free to do as they see fit. I asked him how one would go about holding a person accountable for a hate crime without having an absolute standard of right and wrong. I mentioned what happened to Matthew Shepard and how the men who killed him for being gay were only punished because the law has an absolute standard of right and wrong as a basis to work from. He had no answer.
 
Last edited:
Senyorico said:
Objective, meaning universal and only one standard
Click to expand...
Instead of looking for ‘one standard’, search for a ‘greatest good standard’. Can there be a standard so great; that possibly even God could do nothing greater?

Could God love each and everyone of us as he loves himself?

Could God love us more than he loves himself?

Did the greatest commandments have a greatest meaning for God first?
 
Last edited:
You can’t. Only scientific facts can be objective though they probably have to be nuanced more than they already are to truly be so.
 
Last edited:
Senyorico said:
Please use any Philosophic and/or Scientific evidences. Thank you 😊
Click to expand...
It is a pain, but definitions really count in matters such as this. So you need to define exactly what makes something morally wrong in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top