Is there evidence of objective morality?

[Windfish]

The objective vs. subjective morality debate is really the theist vs. atheist debate in disguise since, with God, there is objective morality and, without God, there is no objective morality.

Without getting into that debate, what evidence is there that human beings are bound by an objective morality and not just natural drives? Remember, a relativist would say that widespread moral unity among cultures across time is not enough since, at most, that would only be evidence of a BELIEF in objective morality?

Any recommended reading on this subject would be helpful, too.

 

[ChrisLane]

I would suggest looking up the is ought problem as explained by David Hume.

Many would disagree, but my own opinion is that western philosophy has been doing semantic tapdancing around that problem since he proposed it. Empirical evidence will only point to ‘is’ statements. No ‘ought’ statements can be derived from a list of ‘is’ statements.

 

[Windfish]

I would suggest looking up the is ought problem as explained by David Hume.

Many would disagree, but my own opinion is that western philosophy has been doing semantic tapdancing around that problem since he proposed it. Empirical evidence will only point to ‘is’ statements. No ‘ought’ statements can be derived from a list of ‘is’ statements.

I know of the problem, but it’s conclusions don’t lean one way or the other, or at least I don’t think so. Can you show me otherwise?

 

[AntiTheist]

The objective vs. subjective morality debate is really the theist vs. atheist debate in disguise since, with God, there is objective morality and, without God, there is no objective morality.

Depends on how you mean “objective.” I’ve seen atheists argue that given a set of shared values – such as the values of a particular culture – there are, in any given situation, an action or set of actions that best reflect those values. And that action, or set of actions, I’ve seen atheists argue, represent the objectively moral act in those cases.

I don’t personally agree with that argument, but there you go – there are indeed atheists who believe in objective morality.

Remember, a relativist would say that widespread moral unity among cultures across time is not enough since, at most, that would only be evidence of a BELIEF in objective morality?

Cultures around the world share some very broad values in common…you know, the ones we would expect civilizations of all kinds to share in common. But there’s also a great, great, great deal of variety in what different cultures consider moral and immoral.

I know of the [is-ought] problem, but it’s conclusion don’t lean one way or the other, or at least I don’t think so. Can you show me otherwise?

Well, if empirical evidence can only demonstrate “is” and not “ought,” then there is no evidence for the existence of any “ought.”

It’s not that hard to grasp.

 

[Windfish]

Well, if empirical evidence can only demonstrate “is” and not “ought,” then there is no evidence for the existence of any “ought.”

It’s not that hard to grasp.

Right, which is what I was confused about. It would seem to lean towards there being no coherent concept for morality at all.

 

[ChrisLane]

If you use methodological skepticism and demand empirical evidence to judge all truth claims, then you are right, you will not find an internally logically consistent system of ethics. This reasoning doesn’t point to moral relativism, though - it points to non-cognitivism.

For what it’s worth, I do not pretend to require empirical evidence for all truth claims. In my opinion, to do so is unreasonable.

 

[Windfish]

If you use methodological skepticism and demand empirical evidence to judge all truth claims, then you are right, you will not find an internally logically consistent system of ethics. This reasoning doesn’t point to moral relativism, though - it points to non-cognitivism.

For what it’s worth, I do not pretend to require empirical evidence for all truth claims. In my opinion, to do so is unreasonable.

What is non-cognitivism?

I do not think we need empirical evidence to establish the existence of objective morality. After all, how can such abstract notions be empirically accessed in the first place? This is another area where I think other kinds of evidence are necessary.

I imagine that there are a whole books on the subject, and I have heard so much from my fellow CAF’ers how moral relativism has been defeated over and over.

 

[ChrisLane]

Non-cognitivists believe that ethical statements are meaningless in that they don’t refer to anything in reality. It’s not the same as saying ethical statements are false, or that we simply can’t prove what is right or wrong.

I’m sure there are people who self-identify as moral relativists who could answer my criticism, but the problem to me is self evident. Moral relativism is intolerance of intolerance. It says you should not believe you can tell others what they should not believe. It does not hold itself to its own standards. In practice, it’s often just rhetoric to dress up preferences and pet peeves in the appearance of a sophisticated system.

To be fair, we can’t deny moral realism has been used as rhetoric to ‘justify’ some pretty heinous acts. As a Catholic, I am a moral realist, but those that disagree on this deserve the same spirit of charity as those who disagree with any other point in church teaching.

 

[scottm]

The objective vs. subjective morality debate is really the theist vs. atheist debate in disguise since, with God, there is objective morality and, without God, there is no objective morality.

Without getting into that debate, what evidence is there that human beings are bound by an objective morality and not just natural drives? Remember, a relativist would say that widespread moral unity among cultures across time is not enough since, at most, that would only be evidence of a BELIEF in objective morality?

Any recommended reading on this subject would be helpful, too.

Study some Buddhist ethics. Those guys developed awesome ethics without recourse to God. It’s shocking how similar their “precepts” (their word) are to the Ten Commandments and related Christian moral rules. And again – they did it without referencing God.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

When someone insists that there is no objective morality I am tempted to stamp on his toes.
Then, when he complains, ask him why shouldn’t I. It may seem wrong to him, but felt right to me.

 

[CosmicActor]

I’ll give you the answer you’ve all been looking for! You can get an “ought” from an “is.” Are human beings animals that as such have two legs? Yes, therefor humans “ought” to have two legs. Are humans rational beings? Yes, therefore if someone is born with a mental disorder (disorder, now that word could not be used if there was no such thing as an “ought”) that is not the way that person was supposed to be. So the relativist or nihilist would need to say (objectively, as a matter of fact), “There is nothing wrong with you if you have only one leg and a mental disorder, because there is no qualitative ‘ought’ you should have been.” If you can’t get an "ought’ from an “is”, then not believeing in evolution isn’t bad. The problem of philosophy, as Bertrand Russell called it, of not being able to get an “ought” from an “is” can only come about if one makes a philosophical shift away from neo-platonism or neo-aristotletarianism and the like. Hume, nor anyone really, has disproven such views. People like Locke, Bacon, and Descartes just influenced so many people to their philosophy that most people just accept it. I would like to add, such an acception has led to nihilism, postmodernism, eliminative materialism, metaphysical darwinism, and the undermining of the scientific method as being reliable to show us objective facts.