Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[AlNg]

You are bringing up an issue that goes to the second point: how do we identify that objectively true moral code?

I don’t know.
But my question is:

1. Is slavery objectively morally wrong?
2. Is torture objectively morally wrong?

 

[knightfall]

Hi 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

Are you agreeing here that there is objective morality, which can be subjectively applied? I think that’s what most folk on this thread are saying. Yes, of course intent and circumstance are important, but these can only be applied against an objective standard.

For example:

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?

All you’re doing here is supplying the intent and circumstance to the moral absolute that the will to harm is always wrong. Sticking a needle in a child in order to heal has no intent to harm. Without the moral absolute against the will to harm, you have nothing against which to judge the act. In fact, only if you believed in the moral absolute that the will to harm is always wrong, could you justly kill an unjust aggressor about to attack your family; since the unjust aggressor has the will to harm, and you know this is objectively wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

That’s correct. As I posted, in the concrete all human acts have specified circumstances and intent. All three, act, intent and circumstances must be good for an act to be judged good. If one only discloses the act then unless the act is inherently evil one cannot judge the morality of the act.

So the human act defined as:
Object of the act: Stick a needle into a child to introduce a chemical into its bloodstream.
Intent: Heal the child.
Circumstances: All necessary conditions and approvals are in place.
Objectively a morally good act. Regardless of who the child is or who the sticker is.

So the human act defined as:
Object of the act: Stick a needle into a child to introduce a chemical into its bloodstream.
Intent: Infect the child.
Circumstances: All necessary conditions and approvals are in place.
Objectively a morally evil act. Regardless of who the child is or who the sticker is.

So the human act defined as:
Object of the act: Stick a needle into a child to introduce a chemical into its bloodstream.
Intent: Heal the child.
Circumstances: Not all necessary conditions and approvals are in place, e.g., unapproved drug.
Objectively a morally evil act. Regardless of who the child is or who the sticker is.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

It’s not that ‘we all believe that torturing children is wrong’ with no reason. We all have reasons for saying so. If it was objectively wrong then all you would need to know is that ‘it’s objectively wrong’. If someone asked why then you could simply say ‘because it is’.

Is that a reasonable answer? Obviously not. Because there has to BE a reason why it’s wrong. There are arguments that you will internalise and rationalise and debate and you will come to a personal decision.

Don’t confuse simple examples like ‘torturing children’ as the example upon which you should base your views. Just because everyone thinks the same about it (with some unfortunate exceptions) it’s easy to think that your particular view, as it aligns with everyone else’s, is correct. Even though you approached the problem from different directions.

 

[Wozza]

All you’re doing here is supplying the intent and circumstance to the moral absolute that the will to harm is always wrong. Sticking a needle in a child in order to heal has no intent to harm. Without the moral absolute against the will to harm, you have nothing against which to judge the act.

There is no moral absolute ‘against the will to harm’. Harming a child can be beneficial. But there are arguments that harm for harm’s sake is wrong.

If I want to harm someone, is it wrong? Well, if it’s justified by the circumstances or not…you tell me your personal opinion.

 

[knightfall]

There is no such thing as absolute morality. All acts are relative to the conditions. As is the example you have given. So we cannot accept the absolute act without considering the conditions. We personally need to make a decision as to whether the conditions justify the act. In every case.

Sounds like you’re making the case for moral relativism. I can’t answer you better than Peter Kreeft, who wrote against this notion in an article found here.

He writes:

"The argument is essentially this: Morality is determined by situations, and situations are relative; therefore, morality is relative. A closely related argument can be considered together with this one that morality is relative because it is determined by motive.
…

So both the situationist and the motivationist conclude against moral absolutes. The situationist because he finds all morality relative to the situation, the motivationist because he finds all morality relative to the motive. We reply with a common-sense distinction. Morality is indeed conditioned, or partly determined, by both situations and motives, but it is not wholly determined by situations or motives. Traditional common sense morality involves three moral determinants, three factors that influence whether a specific act is morally good or bad. The nature of the act itself, the situation, and the motive. Or, what you do; when, where, and how you do it; and why you do it.

… a good life requires you do the right thing, the act itself; and have a right reason or motive; and that you do it in the right way, the situation.
…
The fact that the same principles must be applied differently to different situations presupposes the validity of those principles. Moral absolutists need not be absolutistic about applications to situations. They can be flexible. But a flexible application of the standard presupposes not just a standard, but a rigid standard. If the standard is as flexible as the situation it is no standard at all. If the yardstick with which to measure the length of a twisting alligator is as twisting as the alligator, you cannot measure with it. Yardsticks have to be rigid. "

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

That’s correct. As I posted, in the concrete all human acts have specified circumstances and intent. All three, act, intent and circumstances must be good for an act to be judged good. If one only discloses the act then unless the act is inherently evil one cannot judge the morality of the act.

So the human act defined as:
Object of the act: Stick a needle into a child to introduce a chemical into its bloodstream.
Intent: Heal the child.
Circumstances: All necessary conditions and approvals are in place.

You jumped the gun. All conditions have been specified. But approval is in place. Who needs to make that approval?

If you keep using simple examples where everyone is going to agree with whether it is approved or not then you won’t follow the argument. Even if everyone on the planet approves, they have to make a case for their approval.

Try to find an example where all the conditions are specifiied but where there is general disagreement. How do we then determine if it is a moral act?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

There is no such thing as absolute morality. All acts are relative to the conditions. As is the example you have given. So we cannot accept the absolute act without considering the conditions. We personally need to make a decision as to whether the conditions justify the act. In every case.

Sounds like you’re making the case for moral relativism. I can’t answer you better than Peter Kreeft, who wrote against this notion in an article found [here].

Thanks, knight. But I’d prefer your views rather than Kreeft’s. But please quote him as you think necessary to back up anything you have to say.

 

[Dovekin]

In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.
Gaudium et Spes

I am not sure how to phrase this, but this discussion is upside down. There is a rigid moral law that exists, but it is within us. We struggle to understand it, but it is ih our hearts. In certain respects, this means it is subjective. In other ways, it is “objective” because it was written on our hearts by God.

Conscience tells us what is right and what is wrong. This is always in particular circumstances. More general rules can be abstracted from experience, or learned from other people reflecting on their experience. But these are only approximations to the law we already have within us. Even if we choose to follow the Ten Commandments, for example, it is our conscience that tells us we should choose those rules. And even if we are trying to abide by them, our conscience still considers the difficulties that arise, like telling the truth that will destroy your family.

Every moral choice is a personal choice, rooted in the law written on our hearts. Sometimes we may try to abdicate our responsibility and just follow another’s commands, but that can turn out good or bad. If the other commands what is in harmony with our inner law, great; if they order what is not good, it can conflict with our inner law. Even though most responsibilty lies with the one commanding, it can stunt or twist our development. It may alienate us from God, who is the only real absolute.

I really do not know how to say some of this. I hope this is not too confusing.

 

[AlNg]

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.

If there are situations in real life, such as slavery or torture, and no one can agree upon an operational way to determine whether or not this action is objectively morally wrong, then the concept of an objective moral standard is useless and it fails in these particular cases. If the concept of an objective moral standard fails in certain cases, it then raises doubts.
Some have said that slavery is objectively morally wrong. Which I agree with 100%. However, apparently God allowed slavery according to the Old Testament. And apparently according to the New Testament: 1 Peter 2:18 , NASB: “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.” 1 Peter 2:18 , NLT: "You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect.

 

[tafan2]

It’s not that ‘we all believe that torturing children is wrong’ with no reason. We all have reasons for saying so. If it was objectively wrong then all you would need to know is that ‘it’s objectively wrong’. If someone asked why then you could simply say ‘because it is’.

This makes no sense at all. If something is objectively true, it does not mean there is not a reason behind it. 2 plus 2 equals 4 not just “because it does”, but because anytime you take 2 objects and add them to 2 objects, you always get 4 objects. One can objectively say the height of a regulation basketball goal is 10 feet, not just “because it is” but because the rules of the game evolved to that standard. Objective realities still have reasons, indeed our reason is how we determine them.

 

[o_mlly]

You jumped the gun. All conditions have been specified. But approval is in place. Who needs to make that approval?

If you keep using simple examples where everyone is going to agree with whether it is approved or not then you won’t follow the argument. Even if everyone on the planet approves, they have to make a case for their approval.

Try to find an example where all the conditions are specifiied but where there is general disagreement. How do we then determine if it is a moral act?

Now who is trying to make objective morality more complicated then it is? All those experts in authority to approve have approved or they have not. It’s binary.

 

[Ender]

• Is slavery objectively morally wrong?
• Is torture objectively morally wrong?

If it was objectively wrong then all you would need to know is that ‘it’s objectively wrong’. If someone asked why then you could simply say ‘because it is’.

Something is objectively morally wrong if it is contrary to the objectively true moral code. The reason that is an unsatisfactory answer is not because it isn’t true, but because it isn’t helpful. If I were to ask “Can I buy a gun?” and you were to answer “No, it is against State law” that would be a satisfactory answer because we accept that the law can be known. Unlike questions of moral law we would be quite willing to accept “because the law says so” as an answer to legal questions.

We disagree about the answers to moral questions because, unlike civil laws, we can’t agree on which moral laws are objectively true. In order to answer the question “is slavery wrong” one first has to demonstrate that the moral code one is applying is objectively true.

Another layer to the problem is what Wozza seems to be addressing, which is the application of the moral code in specific instances. Even people who accept the same moral code will often disagree on how it should guide our actions in particular cases. This is really no different than people going to court to argue about different interpretations of civil law. What the law says and how it applies are two different problems.

 

[goout]

AlNg:

• Is slavery objectively morally wrong?
• Is torture objectively morally wrong?

If it was objectively wrong then all you would need to know is that ‘it’s objectively wrong’. If someone asked why then you could simply say ‘because it is’.

Something is objectively morally wrong if it is contrary to the objectively true moral code.
…

You have to go a step deeper.
The moral code points to an objective good.
Everyone: the objectivity of moral evaluation is the good that is the object of the evaluation, not the code itself. Morality is not theoretical, it is based and sourced in “the real”. Morality evaluates real human acts in reference to a real objective good, not strange hypotheticals.

The first problem in the OP’s question is, there is no assumption that an objective good even exists. The question has no coherence.
And we what we have here is a shape-shifter routine using vague definitions of the terms that even the most basic understanding of morality would find pointless.

 

[Ender]

If there are situations in real life, such as slavery or torture, and no one can agree upon an operational way to determine whether or not this action is objectively morally wrong, then the concept of an objective moral standard is useless and it fails in these particular cases. If the concept of an objective moral standard fails in certain cases, it then raises doubts.

If civil law forbids theft, but there are people who reject the law and continue to steal, does this mean the civil standard is useless? We cannot judge the validity of a truth by how many people accept it, and although discerning moral truth is something each of us has to work out for himself we are in fact finding truth, not inventing it.

If the concept of an objective moral standard fails in certain cases, it then raises doubts.

Yes, it does, but do we reject science because occasionally scientists believe to be true things that are actually false?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You jumped the gun. All conditions have been specified. But approval is in place. Who needs to make that approval?

If you keep using simple examples where everyone is going to agree with whether it is approved or not then you won’t follow the argument. Even if everyone on the planet approves, they have to make a case for their approval.

Try to find an example where all the conditions are specifiied but where there is general disagreement. How do we then determine if it is a moral act?

Now who is trying to make objective morality more complicated then it is? All those experts in authority to approve have approved or they have not. It’s binary.

Who are ‘those experts in authority’? Is this an appeal to authority? Someone has already decided the moral justification for all acts? ‘They have approved or not’ you say so that makes in binary?

In some cases, deferring to someone who is in a better position to understand a particular matter isn’t a fallacy. If I wanted to know some detail about evolution, I would defer to Dawkins. But we ain’t talking scientific facts. We are talking what people believe to be right or wrong.

So if half your ‘experts in authority’ decide something is immoral and half think that it’s OK, then is that binary enough for you? Which side will you back?

Either way, even if all ‘experts in authority’ agree, you either accept what they say with no thought OR you make a personal decision as to whether you personally agree with it.

Which is it?

 

[Wozza]

Objective realities still have reasons, indeed our reason is how we determine them.

Each of us, personally, has to decide if a moral act is good or bad. As you said: ‘our reason is how we determine them’. Who do you speak for when you make your argument?

 

[Wozza]

Ender:

AlNg:

• Is slavery objectively morally wrong?
• Is torture objectively morally wrong?

If it was objectively wrong then all you would need to know is that ‘it’s objectively wrong’. If someone asked why then you could simply say ‘because it is’.

Something is objectively morally wrong if it is contrary to the objectively true moral code.
…

You have to go a step deeper.
The moral code points to an objective good.
Everyone: the objectivity of moral evaluation is the good that is the object of the evaluation, not the code itself. Morality is not theoretical, it is based and sourced in “the real”. Morality evaluates real human acts in reference to a real objective good, not strange hypotheticals.

And that good is, first cab off the rank: do no harm.

We can then go on to evaluate any given act in relation to the conditions that pertain to see if harm has been done and if it is justified.

Whether an act is immoral or not, they ALL need to be decided upon relative to the conditions of the specific act. And we each need to decide whether the conditons are relevant, whether they affect the act in any meaningful way and whether they justify the act itself.

If someone can explain how we determine moral acts without going through that process then please step forward.

 

[Elf01]

And that good is, first cab off the rank: do no harm.

We can then go on to evaluate any given act in relation to the conditions that pertain to see if harm has been done and if it is justified.

Whether an act is immoral or not, they ALL need to be decided upon relative to the conditions of the specific act. And we each need to decide whether the conditons are relevant, whether they affect the act in any meaningful way and whether they justify the act itself.

If someone can explain how we determine moral acts without going through that process then please step forward.

That is an objective standard.

 

[o_mlly]

Who are ‘those experts in authority’?

Whomever you want them to be. It doesn’t matter. Changing the kid, the sticker or the experts does not change the morality of the act. That’s why morality is objective.

Is this an appeal to authority?

No, merely sharing a common word does not invoke that logical fallacy.

Someone has already decided the moral justification for all acts?

No, the three principles as elaborated determine the morality of the act.

They have approved or not’ you say so that makes in binary?

Yes, that’ correct.

So if half your ‘experts in authority’ decide something is immoral and half think that it’s OK, then is that binary enough for you? Which side will you back?

The circumstance is that “all” approve. The experts approval is not one of the morality of the act but the suitability of the person, place, drug and time; the things that surrounds the act itself.

Either way, even if all ‘experts in authority’ agree, you either accept what they say with no thought OR you make a personal decision as to whether you personally agree with it.

The issue is not whether the actor acts but rather may he so act morally.