Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[VanitasVanitatum]

If God or some alternative doesn’t exist then no.

 

[Wozza]

Under what conditions would the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another be morally acceptable?

Wozza:

Just because one can suggest acts that have specific conditions that we would all generally agree made the act wrong,

If everyone - literally everyone, all 7 billion of us - agree that something is wrong, isn’t it? And if it isn’t - why do so many people agree that it is?

As Patty has pointed out, you already qualified the act.

And as regards everyone agreeing so it becomes the right thing to do? Wow, you need to step back from that precipice as soon as possible. You’ve posed it as a question. Post it as a statement and there’s no going back.

 

[Ender]

Is slavery objectively speaking morally wrong?

Unless morality exists objectively it does not exist at all. I think Wozza’s position is untenable because he accepts subjective morality. Before we can say whether or not any particular action is immoral we have to first determine that there is such a thing as morality.

What is your position on whether morality objectively exists?

 

[Ender]

I explained that harm can generally be determined as an objective fact but that whether that harm was justified is always a subjective position. I thought that was reasonably clear.

And pretty obviously, if you ask me what my criteria is, it will be my criteria I give so obviously it is my subjective opinion.

Aren’t we stating the obvious?

If evil is whatever each of us believes it to be then what sense does it make to say something is immoral? We are doing nothing more than voicing a preference, and there is no basis for claiming that your criteria are more moral than mine. We would in fact have no basis for claiming that Mother Theresa was more moral than the Marquis de Sade. Her choices may have been different but we cannot say they were more moral.

Subjective morality is an illusion.

 

[TULIPed]

As Patty has pointed out, you already qualified the act.

Murder has a definition. As does every word. Does that make every word qualified?

And as regards everyone agreeing so it becomes the right thing to do?

Clever. Except I said the exact opposite. We’ll agree to disagree I’m afraid.

 

[o_mlly]

You need to read all the answers. One of which was mine and said this in regard to harm:

‘That is almost always an objective criteria. But then we have to move on to whether the harm can be justified. Which is always subjective.’

W: I’m going to harm this guy.
O: For no reason at all?
W: No, he’s being aggresive to my innocent wife and I want to get my retaliation in first.
O: Is there reason for his aggresiveness?
W: No, it’s unjustified.
O: Go for the head.

You need to understand the difference between subjective and objective.

If your example is only true for “W” then the case would be subjectively true. But if the case is always true for any actor then the case is objectively true.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I explained that harm can generally be determined as an objective fact but that whether that harm was justified is always a subjective position. I thought that was reasonably clear.

And pretty obviously, if you ask me what my criteria is, it will be my criteria I give so obviously it is my subjective opinion.

Aren’t we stating the obvious?

If evil is whatever each of us believes it to be then what sense does it make to say something is immoral? We are doing nothing more than voicing a preference, and there is no basis for claiming that your criteria are more moral than mine. We would in fact have no basis for claiming that Mother Theresa was more moral than the Marquis de Sade. Her choices may have been different but we cannot say they were more moral.

Subjective morality is an illusion.

So you personally could not give reasons why torturing children is immoral? Of course you could. Now imagine yourself in debate with someone who thinks it’s a good idea. We’re all chewing popcorn in the stalls to see who has the better argument. A lot of children will be affected by the outcome.

Assuming that we have found someone who genuinely thinks it would be OK and assuming that the stalls are full of a reasonable cross section of people, how do you think you’d go?

I would suggest that your opening remarks should not include: ‘I must say before we start that there is no basis for claiming my morality is any different from the opposition’s’.

Skip that risible claim to start and my money is on you. But you seem to think it a lost cause before you are called to speak.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

As Patty has pointed out, you already qualified the act.

Murder has a definition. As does every word. Does that make every word qualified?

And as regards everyone agreeing so it becomes the right thing to do?

Clever. Except I said the exact opposite. We’ll agree to disagree I’m afraid.

Second point first. This is what you asked:

"If everyone - literally everyone, all 7 billion of us - agree that something is wrong, isn’t it? "

Are you going to make that a statement? Or is it an honest answer that you’d like me to answer?

First point second. No, not all words are qualified. ‘Murder’ is one because it describes a particular set of circumstances under which someone is killed. So if you murder someone we know the conditions under which that act took place.

Now let’s try another word: ‘Harm’. If I harm a child, then do you know the conditions? To prevent some back and forth, I’ll answer for you. No. So we need conditions specified. Sticking a needle into her…for fun? Sticking a needle into her…to give an injection?

Now you can decide if those acts are acceptable or not.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You need to read all the answers. One of which was mine and said this in regard to harm:

‘That is almost always an objective criteria. But then we have to move on to whether the harm can be justified. Which is always subjective.’

W: I’m going to harm this guy.
O: For no reason at all?
W: No, he’s being aggresive to my innocent wife and I want to get my retaliation in first.
O: Is there reason for his aggresiveness?
W: No, it’s unjustified.
O: Go for the head.

You need to understand the difference between subjective and objective.

If your example is only true for “W” then the case would be subjectively true. But if the case is always true for any actor then the case is objectively true.

Me causing harm to him would be an objective fact. I just hit him in the head with a 4x2. No argument there. Now…was it justified? We don’t know.

Now we have two guys laying out another two guys with said 4x2’s. Was harm caused? Yes, exactly as in the first example. Was it justified in both cases? Well, if you ask a few simple questions you will be able to make a personal decision based on those conditions (which makes it relative to those conditions). And which, as being a personal decision, makes it relative to those conditions.

First guy says he didn’t like the way the victim was dressed. Second guy says that the victim was about to hit his wife.

Both examples subject to your personal opinion as to whether the acts are right or wrong.

 

[AlNg]

What is your position on whether morality objectively exists?

I would think so, except that there does seem to be a problem with torture and slavery. In recent years, both have been condemned as morally wrong, however, there was a time when religious authorities accepted them.

 

[tafan2]

I realize I am late to the discussion, but you are obviously confusing two things. There is objective morality, and there is the case of applying that morality to specific circumstances. That can at times require a subject judgement. But the issue: assaulting someone with a 2x4 is objectively wrong, when so assaulted, defending one self is objectively just.

 

[tafan2]

What difference does that make as to whether or not objective morality exists? The past judgements of religious authorities could have been wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Me causing harm to him would be an objective fact. I just hit him in the head with a 4x2. No argument there. Now…was it justified? We don’t know.

Now we have two guys laying out another two guys with said 4x2’s. Was harm caused? Yes, exactly as in the first example. Was it justified in both cases? Well, if you ask a few simple questions you will be able to make a personal decision based on those conditions (which makes it relative to those conditions). And which, as being a personal decision, makes it relative to those conditions.

First guy says he didn’t like the way the victim was dressed. Second guy says that the victim was about to hit his wife.

Both examples subject to your personal opinion as to whether the acts are right or wrong.

Until the act, the intent and circumstances are known, the case remains in the abstract. Abstraction removes facts and departs from reality.

An abstracted case is not objective or subjective, it simply is abstracted, missing one or more facts. One can never judge the morality of a case in which intent or circumstances are abstracted unless the act itself is intrinsically evil.

 

[AlNg]

What difference does that make as to whether or not objective morality exists? The past judgements of religious authorities could have been wrong.

OK. So is slavery objectively morally wrong?
Is torture objectively morally wrong?

 

[Wozza]

I realize I am late to the discussion, but you are obviously confusing two things. There is objective morality, and there is the case of applying that morality to specific circumstances. That can at times require a subject judgement. But the issue: assaulting someone with a 2x4 is objectively wrong, when so assaulted, defending one self is objectively just.

I agree. What some people class as objective morality contains no circumstances to enable one to decide if it’s a moral act. Hitting someone because he is wearing something you find offensive and doing the same if he is threatening your wife are examples of an objective act which is determined to be just or not depending on the circumstances.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Me causing harm to him would be an objective fact. I just hit him in the head with a 4x2. No argument there. Now…was it justified? We don’t know.

Now we have two guys laying out another two guys with said 4x2’s. Was harm caused? Yes, exactly as in the first example. Was it justified in both cases? Well, if you ask a few simple questions you will be able to make a personal decision based on those conditions (which makes it relative to those conditions). And which, as being a personal decision, makes it relative to those conditions.

First guy says he didn’t like the way the victim was dressed. Second guy says that the victim was about to hit his wife.

Both examples subject to your personal opinion as to whether the acts are right or wrong.

Until the act, the intent and circumstances are known, the case remains in the abstract. Abstraction removes facts and departs from reality.

An abstracted case is not objective or subjective, it simply is abstracted, missing one or more facts. One can never judge the morality of a case in which intent or circumstances are abstracted unless the act itself is intrinsically evil.

And you don’t know it’s evil (sticking a needle into a child) unless you know the circumstances. So it becomes relative to those circumstances. And then you can make a personal decision based on those circumstances.

 

[Ender]

So you personally could not give reasons why torturing children is immoral?

I cannot give any reason to believe that morality itself exists unless it exists objectively. If it is simply subjective then it is a meaningless concept. Yes, of course we all believe torturing children is immoral, but that’s not actually a rational position unless there is an objectively true moral basis for claiming it.

Pretty much everyone believes that right and wrong exist, but mostly out of habit, not from an analysis of the topic. If I believe X is moral and you believe X is immoral, how do we determine which of us is right? If there is no objectively right answer then no matter what X is (including torturing children) you cannot reasonably say that one position is moral and the other immoral.

 

[Ender]

I would think so, except that there does seem to be a problem with torture and slavery. In recent years, both have been condemned as morally wrong, however, there was a time when religious authorities accepted them.

OK, but this is a very different discussion than one with someone who believes morality does not objectively exist. As I said, that is the first point to be settled. You are bringing up an issue that goes to the second point: how do we identify that objectively true moral code?

 

[tafan2]

Yes to the first. I would not know on the second. Which doesn’t change the answer to the thread title. Let me ask you: is murder (note: murder, not killing) objectively wrong?

 

[tafan2]

Yes, and to know it exist, we only have to identify one natural law, just one. If anyone admits to one objective evil, then they must say the answer to the question posed is yes.

Conversely, for one to claim the answer is no, they must deny all, each and every one, moral codes as objective.