How do I prove objective morality?

[John10]

If there was no objective morality, it would mean that there is really no evil or good, simply a difference of opinion.

So a serial killer might feel morally good about killing someone, and nobody could do anything about it, because if you disagree it is simply your opinion.

It would also make it impossible to enact laws or have any regulation at all. It would also mean we could never judge anyone for anything.

 

[o_mlly]

All men desire the ultimate good – happiness.

No man can be happy if his desires are unfulfilled.

Natural desires are desires with which we are innately endowed. They are inherent in human nature and are present in all human beings.

The word “needs” describes our natural desires, and the word “wants” describes the desires some may and others may not acquire.

The object of our desires is not always the good that we ought to desire. If the good were always and only that which appears good to us because we consciously desire it, it would be impossible to distinguish between right and wrong desire. How do we objectively determine right desires from wrong desires? We cannot. But we can objectively determine needs from wants and give primacy to our desire for needs thereby regulating our desires.

We ought to want the things we need. We ought not to want the things we do not need if wanting them interferes with our wanting—and acquiring—the things we do need.

What are human needs? Life, liberty, justice, friendship, truth, food, shelter, clothing, health, ?. Only if agreement is obtained on what constitutes human needs can “oughts” and “ought-nots” be objectively pursued under the rule that if one needs something then one has a right to it and others have an obligation to respect that right.

 

[TheLittleLady]

What will you accept as proof?

 

[Aquinas11]

Divine revelation - God has already communicated it to man through prophets, Abraham, Moses, and through himself as Jesus. Man directed detected this with his 5 senses and recorded it. That is the evidence. To reject that objective morality you have to reject the recording of all of these countless people, many of whom (eg. disciples, apostles, Paul, etc) were tortured to death yet none recanted…if they were conmen as doubters suggest they’d be the first ones to recant and avoid a painful death

 

[Wozza]

If there was no objective morality, it would mean that there is really no evil or good, simply a difference of opinion.

So a serial killer might feel morally good about killing someone, and nobody could do anything about it, because if you disagree it is simply your opinion.

It would also make it impossible to enact laws or have any regulation at all. It would also mean we could never judge anyone for anything.

This is a common misapprehension, John. Just because we decide ourselves what is right or wrong does NOT give us carte blanche to do as we would like to do. We have, as a society, determined that some things are bad for society as a whole. Killing someone unlawfully and with forethought is classed as murder and we have decided that it’s better for everyone if you don’t go hacking your neighbour to death. So you can’t do as you please.

So is that an example of objective morality? How did we determine that it’s wrong? Is it the fact that most of us agree? In which case, can we use that rule to determine other acts?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

All men desire the ultimate good – happiness.

First apply the greatest commandments, if I want happiness for myself, then I should desire that all my neighbours find this same happiness.

 

[o_mlly]

First apply the greatest commandments, if I want happiness for myself, then I should desire that all my neighbours find this same happiness.

Certainly.

The OP requested only scientific or philosophical arguments. The “golden rule” and Kant’s Categorical Imperative as non-religious rules also apply.

 

[John10]

Killing someone unlawfully and with forethought is classed as murder and we have decided that it’s better for everyone if you don’t go hacking your neighbour to death. So you can’t do as you please.

Based on what? If there is no objective morals then it is simply your opinion. A serial killer would disagree with you.

You are right that a majority of people agreeing on something does not necessarily mean it is morally acceptable (Stalin , Hitler regimes were obviously not good despite most of the country following along). Therefore we can deduct there is a moral objective standard which is independent from our personal views or feelings and even from what a majority of people might agree on.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The OP requested only scientific or philosophical arguments.

Maybe there is a philosophical way to test the power of the greatest commandments; when looking for a purpose for the creation of the universe and life.

Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God the Father, Son and Holy spirit looking out into the vast empty void of space. They are thinking, we have the power to create anything we want, what is the greatest good thing that we can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be the supreme builder. He could create plants; and be the unsurpassed gardener. God could create the animal kingdom; and be the best farmer. God could create children in his own image and be the greatest father. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image?

God could love each and everyone of his children as he loves himself. Could God love us more than he loves himself?

Could there be any greater purpose for God to create the universe and life?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So a serial killer might feel morally good about killing someone, and nobody could do anything about it, because if you disagree it is simply your opinion.

Yes, exactly.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

wrong does NOT give us carte blanche to do as we would like to do.

You could get punished but that’s just someone exercising their own faculties, so objectively that’s not true.

 

[Thom18]

It can be argued that the existence of objective truth lends itself to the existence of objective morality.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Killing someone unlawfully and with forethought is classed as murder and we have decided that it’s better for everyone if you don’t go hacking your neighbour to death. So you can’t do as you please.

Based on what? If there is no objective morals then it is simply your opinion. A serial killer would disagree with you.

You are right that a majority of people agreeing on something does not necessarily mean it is morally acceptable (Stalin , Hitler regimes were obviously not good despite most of the country following along). Therefore we can deduct there is a moral objective standard which is independent from our personal views or feelings and even from what a majority of people might agree on.

You said this earlier:

‘Because we all agree there are certain things which are simply evil to do.’

It’s not ‘all’ as you have pointed out above. It’s almost all. But that is sufficient to deter the individual ‘doing what he wants’. But whether objective morality exists or not, the serial killer can still kill. So the argument doesn’t stand. You have to show that objective morality DOES prevent people from making their own decisions on right or wrong and acting on those decisions. It plainly doesn’t.

And if a majority of people do not agree on a specific objective moral standard (and let’s include you and me in that majority) then how do we know we are wrong.

I take it that you don’t mind being included in that hypothetical majority. Otherwise one might think that you are fully knowledgeable about all moral problems.

 

[Wozza]

o_mlly:

The OP requested only scientific or philosophical arguments.

Maybe there is a philosophical way to test the power of the greatest commandments; when looking for a purpose for the creation of the universe and life.

Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God the Father, Son and Holy spirit looking out into the vast empty void of space. They are thinking, we have the power to create anything we want, what is the greatest good thing that we can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be the supreme builder. He could create plants; and be the unsurpassed gardener. God could create the animal kingdom;

You do know that almost all animals spend their time either killing other animals (in the most unpleasant manner imagineable) or trying to avoid being eaten.

Was that the greatest good God could imagine?

 

[Wozza]

John10:

So a serial killer might feel morally good about killing someone, and nobody could do anything about it, because if you disagree it is simply your opinion.

Yes, exactly.

Why ON EARTH is the fact that someone can have an opinion on something equated with the statement ‘well, you can’t orevent him acting on that’.

If someone thought that killing your children was a good thing to do, would you shrug your shoulders and say ‘well apparently there is no objective morality so who am I to stop him’.

It’s a nonsensical position.

It can be argued that the existence of objective truth lends itself to the existence of objective morality.

It could be. But it would be wrong.

That my car is red is an objective truth. Where do you go with that?

 

[John10]

It’s not ‘all’ as you have pointed out above. It’s almost all

Correct, however I’ll clarify, I mean all of those with a properly formed moral conscience (based on independent and objective moral standards). All of those, not every single person.

But whether objective morality exists or not, the serial killer can still kill. So the argument doesn’t stand. You have to show that objective morality DOES prevent people from making their own decisions on right or wrong and acting on those decisions. It plainly doesn’t.

The existence of morality does not prevent anybody from doing evil (because we have free will, but that is another subject), but it does discourage people from doing it, because there are usually laws (which if they are good, will be based on independent objective moral standards) and you could spend many years in jail. I do not think many people would like that , even if in their opinion someone deserves to die.

It also helps by instructing people on how to behave and guiding me accordingly otherwise even counselling would be impossible (based on what, your or mine opinion ?).

And if a majority of people do not agree on a specific objective moral standard (and let’s include you and me in that majority) then how do we know we are wrong.

For me it is really easy, because I believe in the Catholic Christian God, He is the independent moral objective standard of goodness itself. However even if I was not a catholic or I was an atheist I would still have a conscious, which would still bother me if I did something evil. I of course can choose to ignore it, but it does not change the fact that it is wrong.

I used to think certain evil things were ok, but after instructing myself with Catholic Doctrine and reasoning things it was very clear they are wrong, and I am not afraid to rectify if I misjudge something.

 

[John10]

If someone thought that killing your children was a good thing to do, would you shrug your shoulders and say ‘well apparently there is no objective morality so who am I to stop him’.

It’s a nonsensical position.

If there was no independent objective moral standard that is correct, just like in the animal kingdom, we see many animals kill each other with zero issues. That is what would happen to us if moral independent objective standards did not exist, if someone murdered my children there would be zero accountability or any possibility of justice (based on what my opinion ?).

Therefore, that is why saying there are no moral independent objective standards does not make much sense to me.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

If someone thought that killing your children was a good thing to do, would you shrug your shoulders and say ‘well apparently there is no objective morality so who am I to stop him’.

It’s a nonsensical position.

… if someone murdered my children there would be zero accountability or any possibility of justice (based on what my opinion ?)

Didn’t someone explain that there are processes in place so that individual personal opinions are countered by the opinion of the majority? Oh yeah. It was me.

So if most people think that someone killing your children is a bad thing (which doesn’t make it objective simply by that fact), then they still could. Nothing you or I or the general population will prevent it, but we - as a society, will impose punishments to deter such actions.

 

[John10]

Nothing you or I or the general population will prevent it, but we - as a society, will impose punishments to deter such actions.

However the issue is you cannot impose punishment in a fair and just manner based only on people’s opinion ever a majority opinion. That would imply dictatorship governments such as Stalin, Hitler and others who clearly did very evil things, are really not wrong, they simply happen to have a different opinion from others.

As I have said before you cannot have justice unless there is an independent moral objective standard.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Nothing you or I or the general population will prevent it, but we - as a society, will impose punishments to deter such actions.

However the issue is you cannot impose punishment in a fair and just manner based only on people’s opinion ever a majority opinion. That would imply dictatorship governments such as Stalin, Hitler and others who clearly did very evil things, are really not wrong, they simply happen to have a different opinion from others.

You don’t seem to have a grasp of the concept of democracy.