Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Wozza]

Chris thinks that there are objectively true moral facts.

We can look at any event and individually determine whether it is right or wrong. That’s your relativistic approach: ‘X is wrong as far as I am concerned because of these conditions and these results’. Now if something is objectively wrong, then it doesn’t matter what we individually think and it doesn’t matter about the conditions. X is wrong. Period.

The first problem is how we find out if X is wrong. To whom do we turn? Where is the information that tells us this objective fact? Assuming that it is not covered by scripture or the catechism or any papal declaration then we need someone to tell me where this information comes from and how we can trust it.

The second problem is that if Chris HAS been told that X is wrong via scripture, the catechism or maybe a papal decree, then he has to decide personally if it’s correct. So we are back to making a personal decision. Failing that of course is the unnerving concept of Christians doing what they have been told without making that personal decision. And correct me if I’m wrong, but the Church expects you to take some personal responsibility in these areas. And we are back to personally deciding if X is wrong or not.

The third problem is that if X is objectively wrong, it implies that there are no arguments needed to be given in support of that claim. It’s an a priori statement. Meaning it requires no explanation. It’s a fact however we approach it. It just is. Just like my car is red. But…if we have someone who isn’t sure if an act is wrong or right, then Chris and I can try to point her in the right direction. I can give her all the reasons why I believe it to be wrong and point out the likely consequences and explain why they would be undesirable and Chris would say…well it just is.

But that, hopefully, is what wouldn’t happen. Chris would give all the reasons for it being wrong as well. And point out the conditions under which it would be wrong. And the undesirable results. Chris would make an argument - because a simple ‘It’s wrong because it’s wrong’ isn’t going to get him anywhere.

Consequent to that, we can see that even if Chris claims that something is objectively wrong, there are still arguments to be made as to the relative conditions and the possible outcomes. Even though an objective moral truth, by definition, doesn’t require any of those to be discussed, it must to have any weight whatsoever. So what could be the difference be between an objective claim that requires no explanation and one that does?

 

[Neithan]

So what could be the difference be between an objective claim that requires no explanation and one that does?

How about the force of conscience? Murdering an innocent person, for example, I would argue is something that any psychologically healthy human being would inherently recognize as wrong. Some people’s consciences are lacking or defective, such as psychopaths, but this is also true for other perceptions, such as colour. If someone is colour blind and sees Chris’s car is green and not red, does that mean it is green? Objectivity does not require that subjective judgment is accurate in every individual case, but that there is some objectively accessible point of reference (for example, the electromagnetic spectrum, or human nature).

 

[Ender]

Chris thinks that there are objectively true moral facts.

If morality does not exist objectively then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way. Choosing between helping an old woman across the street, or pushing her under a bus is no more meaningful than choosing between vanilla and chocolate pudding.

The first problem is how we find out if X is wrong.

True. If we have no way to determine what is or is not objectively true then, practically speaking, the situation is the same as if it didn’t exist.

The second problem is that if Chris HAS been told that X is wrong via scripture, the catechism or maybe a papal decree, then he has to decide personally if it’s correct.

I would think the second problem is deciding which of several competing moral codes is likely to be true. Hinduism? Buddhism? Catholicism? etc. Once one has made that choice then I think it is irrational to second guess its teachings. This is what has always bothered me about “cafeteria Catholicism”. It makes no sense to be Catholic and yet believe some of what she teaches may be wrong.

The third problem is that if X is objectively wrong, it implies that there are no arguments needed to be given in support of that claim. It’s an a priori statement. Meaning it requires no explanation.

Two things: in one sense we wouldn’t need to explain why X is wrong, but we would surely require an explanation for why we know it to be wrong. In fact, however, someone would need to provide a rational explanation for why X is wrong that logically fits with all the other teachings. These prohibitions don’t exist in a vacuum; they are all intertwined.

Consequent to that, we can see that even if Chris claims that something is objectively wrong, there are still arguments to be made as to the relative conditions and the possible outcomes.

If something is objectively wrong then by definition the conditions and outcomes are irrelevant: it is wrong. If something is not objectively wrong it could still be wrong in particular instances, and that would be a place where disagreement is reasonable.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So what could be the difference be between an objective claim that requires no explanation and one that does?

How about the force of conscience? Murdering an innocent person, for example, I would argue is something that any psychologically healthy human being would inherently recognize as wrong. Some people’s consciences are lacking or defective, such as psychopaths, but this is also true for other perceptions, such as colour. If someone is colour blind and sees Chris’s car is green and not red, does that mean it is green? Objectivity does not require that subjective judgment is accurate in every individual case, but that there is some objectively accessible point of reference (for example, the electromagnetic spectrum, or human nature).

The problem you are suggesting is with the person not understanding the concept. And would therefore require it to be explained. The question that you quoted is more my bemusement that an objectively moral truth has an explanation in the first place.

It’s as if those who claim objective morality explain why an act is wrong, giving circumstances and outcomes and then go on to say that despite giving relative conditions state that it is objective. How do we tell an objective moral truth if they all have conditional explanations?

To head off an objection to that: One might say that torturing children obviously needs no conditions because it is wrong in itself. But ‘torturing children’ contains the conditions within the phrase. Just as ‘murder is obviously wrong’ contains the conditions that it is killing unlawfully with premeditiation. and ‘torturing children’ is harming children for the pleasure it gives the person commiting the act.

 

[Wozza]

I would think the second problem is deciding which of several competing moral codes is likely to be true. Hinduism? Buddhism? Catholicism?

Skipping your other points for the moment, as you said, you need to make a personal decision as to which moral code is true. So someone says ‘X is wrong’ and you need to decide, personally, if what they say is true. And you cannot do that in a vacuum. You need explanations. You need the conditions. You need to know the outcomes. You then make a personal decison.

And surely, you need to do that for every single moral problem. Surely you can’t assume that if a few problems have been decided - to your personal satisfaction, then all others will turn out to be the same. This is an obvious problem within Catholicism at the moment with many serious Catholics rejecting, for example, contraception.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t understand why lack of agreement is evidence that there is no objective morality. Take the old “four blind men touching different parts of an elephant but coming to different conclusions about what they’re touching” story. You’re basically asking if they’re touching anything objectively real and pointing to their disagreement as evidence that they’re not.

Yes, there is objective morality. Yes, it’s based on objective human nature. Yes, we lack absolute 100% full knowledge of human nature and only understand it partially, and that can lead to disagreements. We observe and debate and use logic to defend our position as correct.

 

[Neithan]

How do we tell an objective moral truth if they all have conditional explanations?

So you’re looking for an a priori unconditioned example of an objective moral truth?

How about lying: deliberately contradicting a known fact, is objectively immoral with no conditional explanation. We know what lying is from a very young age.

 

[Wozza]

If something is objectively wrong then by definition the conditions and outcomes are irrelevant: it is wrong. If something is not objectively wrong it could still be wrong in particular instances, and that would be a place where disagreement is reasonable.

I say that it is impossible to state an objectively immoral act without explicity or implicity implying the conditions. As I said above regarding murder.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

How do we tell an objective moral truth if they all have conditional explanations?

So you’re looking for an a priori unconditioned example of an objective moral truth?

How about lying: deliberately contradicting a known fact, is objectively immoral with no conditional explanation. We know what lying is from a very young age.

One person lies and another person tells the truth. Your claim is that the first person has comitted an objectively immoral act. But the truth will result in your family being murdered and the lie means they will be safe.

Can we seriously argue that lying is objectively wrong in that case? We need to know the conditions to make that judgement.

 

[Neithan]

I’ve thought about this (and still do) a lot. It is still objectively wrong to deliberately contradict reality — simply wrong, literally wrong. This does raise the further ethical question of whether the end justifies the means: can we commit immoral acts, considered in and of themselves, with some ethical justification?

My understanding of the Catholic teaching is that lies are never justifiable; however, we are not obliged to reveal the truth, and our guilt is mitigated (it could be a venial and not a mortal sin).

 

[Wozza]

I’ve thought about this (and still do) a lot. It is still objectively wrong to deliberately contradict reality — simply wrong, literally wrong. This does raise the further ethical question of whether the end justifies the means: can we commit immoral acts, considered in and of themselves, with some ethical justification?

The answer to the question is obviously yes. We should lie to prevent our family being murdered. Which then raises the question: How on earth can we describe something as objectively wrong which brings about something indisputably right?

Which doesn’t mean that therefore lying is OK. But we need to know the situation. The conditions. The circumstances.

 

[Neithan]

The answer to the question is obviously yes. We should lie to prevent our family being murdered.

Does this not assume objective morality? That allowing one’s family to be murdered is objectively wrong?

 

[Nyx]

Who decides what “innocent” means? Say a place is invaded by another group/country and this person readily support them…while most others hate them. Our hypothetical person doesn’t physically harm, abuse, steal and so on from anyone…he/she is just cheering for whomever is now in control. Is this person innocent? Who decides…his/her community or an outsider?
Lets just say this person support them because he/she hopes to get a better job, house or a trip with his family…or say he/she truly believes whomever took the power has a better plan to rule the place and in the long-term most people would be much happier. Does it change in any way whatever he/she is innocent or not?

 

[Neithan]

Does it change in any way whatever he/she is innocent or not?

It’s a great point, and I think no one is absolutely innocent except very young children, babies, and severely intellectually challenged people. But how do you decide if you have the authority to kill someone? I could try to restate the point but the objective meaning is it is wrong to unjustly kill a human being, which basically means it is wrong to act unjustly, that leads to what the meaning of justice is and whether it is objective or not.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The answer to the question is obviously yes. We should lie to prevent our family being murdered.

Does this not assume objective morality? That allowing one’s family to be murdered is objectively wrong?

If you include the circumstances in which the act takes place then it is conditional upon those circumstances and therefore relative to them. Hence you need to make a decison as to whether those relative conditions are worth considering. Ipso facto, it cannot be objective.

If you can class everything as objective if the conditions are included then there are no such things as relative acts and there is nothing for you to decide. Hence no subjective moral acts. Which appears to be nonsensical.

 

[Ender]

you need to make a personal decision as to which moral code is true. So someone says ‘X is wrong’ and you need to decide, personally, if what they say is true.

Deciding which moral code is true is very different from deciding whether a particular instruction in that code is accurate. If I’m going to doubt individual doctrines then in what sense can it be said that I have accepted the code? You either accept it or you don’t. It’s like being half pregnant; the condition does not exist.

And surely, you need to do that for every single moral problem.

Following (e.g.) Catholic doctrine is like following the Constitution. There may be reasonable dissent over what it says but there can be no reasonable dissent over what it ought to say. It is not rational to claim “It says A, but I think B is right.”

That said, knowing what the doctrine says usually provides little guidance in applying the doctrine in specific instances. When an intrinsic evil is involved the answer is obvious: regardless of circumstances it may not be done. There are, for example, no exceptions that allow an abortion. The positive commands (e.g. feed the poor) come with no instructions on how best to achieve that goal. There is nothing in that directive that suggests one must support raising the minimum wage.

This is an obvious problem within Catholicism at the moment with many serious Catholics rejecting, for example, contraception.

As I said, I think this position is simply irrational, and the validity of Catholicism is in no way influenced by those who behave irrationally.

 

[o_mlly]

If you can class everything as objective if the conditions are included then there are no such things as relative acts and there is nothing for you to decide. Hence no subjective moral acts. Which appears to be nonsensical.

Catholic moral teaching does not claim every human act is moral or immoral beyond circumstances. The ends do justify the means if, and only if, the means are not evil in themselves.

 

[o_mlly]

Does it change in any way whatever he/she is innocent or not?

Culpability for an immoral act is separate from the objective determination of the morality of the act. Culpability is subjective. The goodness or evilness of the act is objective.

 

[Wozza]

Morality is subjective, and everything is right and nothing is wrong.

Is it ever acceptable to harm a child? Depending on the circumstances - an injection or torture, it is either right or wrong.

If harming a child was objectively wrong, then she’d never get the life saving injection.

 

[Elf01]

Is it ever acceptable to harm a child? Depending on the circumstances - an injection or torture, it is either right or wrong.

If harming a child was objectively wrong, then she’d never get the life saving injection.

Implies that torturing a child is objectively wrong.

If there is no objective morality you can’t say that.