Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

If we need to determine the morality of an act then we first must determine if it even qualifies as a moral act. That is, has harm been done. Now that can often (but not always) be determined objectively. If I shoot you, you are shot. No denying that. If I call you something to which you take offence, then that’s a little more difficult. But that’s Part One out the way of a two part process.

Part Two is where YOU decide if the conditions need to be considered. Where YOU need to decide if they had undue influence. Where YOU decide if the conditions justified the act. Where YOU give us your PERSONAL opinion as to whether the act is moral or not.

And you want to call that objective. Am I right?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

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.

So let me offer a more difficult scenario. How about 24/7 surveillance? The act is to ensure that everyone is covered by surveillance. The intent is to prevent crime. And the circumstances are that terrorism is rife so it’s proposed we have cameras almost everywhere.

You may have a PERSONAL opinion as to whether that is right or wrong. Does that make it so? What if all experts agree it’s necessary? Does that make it objectively right? What if everyone says no. Does that make it objectively wrong?

Everyone who would have (name removed by moderator)ut would have a personal opinion on whether it is right or wrong. So how do we find the objectively correct answer? It can’t be based on opinion as that would make it subjective.

What’s the secret?

 

[Elf01]

And you want to call that objective?

Yes. Part 1 is certainly objective (at least with respect to physical harm).

Part 2 is subjective but unless you are suggesting that the actor determines if the act is justified then you have a standard in mind.

For example a pro lifer may feel that killing an abortionist or abortion supporting polition is completely justified. I doubt you would agree. Who decides if it was justified?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

And you want to call that objective?

Yes. Part 1 is certainly objective (at least with respect to physical harm).

Part 2 is subjective but unless you are suggesting that the actor determines if the act is justified then you have a standard in mind.

For example a pro lifer may feel that killing an abortionist or abortion supporting polition is completely justified. I doubt you would agree. Who decides if it was justified?

Who decides? We do. I look at the circumstances and make a decision. You do the same.

And again we have someone giving examples where it’s easy to make a decision. Everyone agrees so one side of the fence chants ‘objective morality’ in perfect unison. But what about situations where there are grey areas? Where there are good arguments on both sides. See the 24/7 surveillance example above. Tell me where the objective answer is and how we can find it.

 

[Pattylt]

This has been a great discussion!
I have problems with distinguishing objective vs subjective morality, too.
Here’s a scenario that I would like everyone’s opinion on.
For a Jew, eating pork is wrong as declared by God. To the Christian, eating pork is fine. If a Jew eats pork he would consider it an immoral act as it goes against Gods command but is it objectively immoral? Can a moral law be objective to one group of people but not another?
Thanks in advance!

 

[stpurl]

The secret is not to attempt to go retrograde.
It is not ‘if all experts agree it’s necessary, that makes it right’.

If something is right, it is right whether or not ‘all experts’ agree on it.

In a situation which involves a need to address a moral obligation (the right to keep people safe from terrorists) one may legitimately disagree with the means proposed to keep people safe.

The surveillance is not itself a moral issue; it is a proposed means to address a moral issue.

Here’s another: A city wishes to erect a halfway house for released criminals who have ‘served their time’. Various citizens either approve, or reject, the proposal.

Certainly wishing to give housing and help to people released from prison who might not otherwise have a place to stay is a laudable moral goal. But the means proposed is not something that is itself an objective moral teaching. One can offer other equally legitimate proposals to help and thus, reject the proposal to erect a halfway house, without being accused of ‘subjective morality’.

 

[Elf01]

Tell me where the objective answer is and how we can find it.

I’m actually not sure that that is a moral question.

I’ll play though

There are three aspects in evaluating moral questions from a Catholic perspective.

Object: I’d read that as installing cameras ot taking picture or video. Nothing immoral there. If you’re talking about forcing them

Intent: Stopping crime and terrosim is good

Circumstances: This is prudential. The main drawback would be the potential abuse of the data at a later date.

Are there other potential ways to achieve the goal without it? More police? Could the cameras be concentrated in areas with high crime rates or a high probability of being attacked? How long will data be kept for?

A future government who would abuse it is likely to install the cameras so I would see the main issue as protecting the data in the present. Access should be strictly controlled etc.
Under these circumstances I would say morally good or neutral.

 

[o_mlly]

So let me offer a more difficult scenario. How about 24/7 surveillance? The act is to ensure that everyone is covered by surveillance. The intent is to prevent crime. And the circumstances are that terrorism is rife so it’s proposed we have cameras almost everywhere.

You may have a PERSONAL opinion as to whether that is right or wrong. Does that make it so? What if all experts agree it’s necessary? Does that make it objectively right? What if everyone says no. Does that make it objectively wrong?

Everyone who would have (name removed by moderator)ut would have a personal opinion on whether it is right or wrong. So how do we find the objectively correct answer? It can’t be based on opinion as that would make it subjective.

Object of the act: State surveillance of all people in all places at all times.
Intent: To protect innocent citizens from harm by the evil acts of other people.
Circumstances: Law allowing the state to do so was properly promulgated.
Law does not violate other legitimate authority to which the state has agreed to be bound.

The law is moral.

Object of the act: State surveillance of all people in all places at all times.
Intent: To protect innocent citizens from harm by the evil acts of other people.
Circumstances: Law allowing the state to do so was improperly promulgated.
Law violates other legitimate authority to which the state has agreed to be bound.

The law is immoral (by either circumstance).

Comments:
The state has a duty to protect citizens. Citizens have agreed to be bound by laws properly promulgated (social contract). The law implies a value judgement that the moral right to life and security is higher than a legal right to privacy.

Object of the act: State employee surveilles particular people in particular places at a particular time.
Intent: Voyeurism
Circumstances: Does not matter.

The act is immoral.

 

[Wozza]

The secret is not to attempt to go retrograde.
It is not ‘if all experts agree it’s necessary, that makes it right’.

If something is right, it is right whether or not ‘all experts’ agree on it.

In a situation which involves a need to address a moral obligation (the right to keep people safe from terrorists) one may legitimately disagree with the means proposed to keep people safe.

The surveillance is not itself a moral issue; it is a proposed means to address a moral issue.

If I say I want to watch what you do all day, 24/7, you don’t consider that a moral problem? Me spying on you?

I think we can skip ‘…and here’s another one I though of’ until we clear this one up. If we can’t agree on what constitutes a moral act, then further discussion is pointless.

 

[Wozza]

Under these circumstances I would say morally good or neutral.

But I didn’t ask for your personal opinion. I asked where we find the objective answer. If objective morality exists, then there is an objective answer. Where is it?

 

[Elf01]

But I didn’t ask for your personal opinion. I asked where we find the objective answer. If objective morality exists, then there is an objective answer. Where is it?

I provided how the Church analyzes. There is a system, it may not always be easy to determine where different factors lie. For example in the trolley problem is the death of the one in the object or the circumstances.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So let me offer a more difficult scenario. How about 24/7 surveillance? The act is to ensure that everyone is covered by surveillance. The intent is to prevent crime. And the circumstances are that terrorism is rife so it’s proposed we have cameras almost everywhere.

You may have a PERSONAL opinion as to whether that is right or wrong. Does that make it so? What if all experts agree it’s necessary? Does that make it objectively right? What if everyone says no. Does that make it objectively wrong?

Everyone who would have (name removed by moderator)ut would have a personal opinion on whether it is right or wrong. So how do we find the objectively correct answer? It can’t be based on opinion as that would make it subjective.

Object of the act: State surveillance of all people in all places at all times.
Intent: To protect innocent citizens from harm by the evil acts of other people.
Circumstances: Law allowing the state to do so was properly promulgated.
Law does not violate other legitimate authority to which the state has agreed to be bound.

The law is moral.

So the state, consisting of democratically elected leaders, using lawful means, says it will now watch you and your family 24/7. There is effectively zero privacy.

If I started a thread suggesting that the government intended to do that, what would you think the response would likely be? The majority of members here are relatively conservative. Small l liberals who reject almost all government interference in their lives. Even those more left wing such as myself would baulk at such a suggestion by any state.

I can guarantee that people would decry it as an immoral imposition on our rights to privacy and freedom of movement.

Without starting such a thread (maybe people can chip in to this one), how do we convince them that your position is an objective and moral fact? That it doesn’t depend on what you think.

Edit: Your conditions regarding law and the protection of the population have been used on more than one ocassion in history and has resulted in what most people would definitely class as immoral acts. But your argument as it stands would have those acts be declared moral.

Maybe you need to fine tune it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

But I didn’t ask for your personal opinion. I asked where we find the objective answer. If objective morality exists, then there is an objective answer. Where is it?

I provided how the Church analyzes. There is a system, it may not always be easy to determine where different factors lie. For example in the trolley problem is the death of the one in the object or the circumstances.

We know how the church recommends you analyse something. We’ve covered that. I have no real problem with it. But the church has made no declaration on 24/7 surveilance. They don’t give you the answer. They want you to decide.

But apparently there is an objective answer to this problem. So I don’t want your opinion. And I don’t want to know how the church recommends you approach such problems to formulate your opinion.

I want to know what the ‘objective’ answer is. Not your opinion.

 

[o_mlly]

So the state, consisting of democratically elected leaders, using lawful means, says it will now watch you and your family 24/7. There is effectively zero privacy.

And that is the problem of surreal or unreal hypothetical cases. In the real world, no democracy would allow monitored cameras in the lady’s restroom. Maybe you should fine tune your hypothetical to be more realistic.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So the state, consisting of democratically elected leaders, using lawful means, says it will now watch you and your family 24/7. There is effectively zero privacy.

And that is the problem of surreal or unreal hypothetical cases. In the real world, no democracy would allow monitored cameras in the lady’s restroom. Maybe you should fine tune your hypothetical to be more realistic.

I note that you want the hypothetical cranked back AFTER you had given quite a specific and detailed answer, having accepted the premise and it was only then it was pointed out what it meant. ‘Effectively zero privacy’ means just that. So throw in a few exceptions. No cameras in the john.

So all legal impositions on the public as you stated quite clearly above (with exceptions that you nominate) are morally acceptable. And are objective moral acts.

Apart from the fact that this is your opinion, that it’s legal and will protect the general population, is this a position you want to hold?

Because I can see (and others would argue) that removing 99% of your privacy would be declared monstrously immoral. I think that most people would say that because it’s for our own good and legal THEREFORE the state can impose surveilance is a very bad argument indeed.

So how do we know which is the absolute position?

 

[goout]

goout:

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.

That’s too vague.
Adolf Hitler should have been harmed, ok?

You have to go deeper than that to find the objective good.

It is good to exist. That’s an objective good.
Hitler kills people. In those circumstances, with the aim of upholding the dignity of human life, and the intent to preserve life, the harming of Hitler is pursuant to that objective good.

Morality is not an abstract set of rules, it is an evaluation of human acts pursuant to a real and objective good.

 

[o_mlly]

I note that you want the hypothetical cranked back AFTER you had given quite a specific and detailed answer, having accepted the premise and it was only then it was pointed out what it meant. ‘Effectively zero privacy’ means just that. So throw in a few exceptions. No cameras in the john.

It’s your hypothetical. All I can do is respond to it. I don’t want it “cranked back” but it would be more instructive if you hypothesized closer to the real world.

Any other exceptions beside the Loo?

So all legal impositions on the public as you stated quite clearly above (with exceptions that you nominate) are morally acceptable. And are objective moral acts.

No. Unjust laws are immoral. Unjust laws violate human rights.

Because I can see (and others would argue) that removing 99% of your privacy would be declared monstrously immoral. I think that most people would say that because it’s for our own good and legal THEREFORE the state can impose surveilance is a very bad argument indeed.

Would you be OK with 98% If not 98% what percentage is acceptable? Make your argument that state surveillance is not moral or show the flaws in my argument. Saying so just isn’t enough in this forum; you have to back it up.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

goout:

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.

That’s too vague.
Adolf Hitler should have been harmed, ok?

It would be OK to kill an eight year old Austrian? No, of course not. We need the circumstances. Give the circumstances and we can personally decide if they are relevant.

None of us are omniscient, so was there a point where we would say that killing Hitler was justified? There must have been a point where you would say yes. Would that the the objectively correct thing to do at that specific time? Or just your personal opinion.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I note that you want the hypothetical cranked back AFTER you had given quite a specific and detailed answer, having accepted the premise and it was only then it was pointed out what it meant. ‘Effectively zero privacy’ means just that. So throw in a few exceptions. No cameras in the john.

It’s your hypothetical. All I can do is respond to it. I don’t want it “cranked back” but it would be more instructive if you hypothesized closer to the real world.

Any other exceptions beside the Loo?

So all legal impositions on the public as you stated quite clearly above (with exceptions that you nominate) are morally acceptable. And are objective moral acts.

No. Unjust laws are immoral. Unjust laws violate human rights.

Because I can see (and others would argue) that removing 99% of your privacy would be declared monstrously immoral. I think that most people would say that because it’s for our own good and legal THEREFORE the state can impose surveilance is a very bad argument indeed.

Would you be OK with 98% If not 98% what percentage is acceptable? Make your argument that state surveillance is not moral or show the flaws in my argument. Saying so just isn’t enough in this forum; you have to back it up.

If you want exceptions then you need to voice your personal opinion on the matter. We can compare them to what others think.

And you said that if it was legally justified it would be ok. It would be against Article 12 of tbe UDHR but again, you said it would be morally acceptable.

Lastly, I am not arguing for or against the proposal. I have views on it that are in opposition to yours. And I can guarantee that your views would be in direct opposition to very many people. But the point being made is that there is no one right answer. You even adjusted yours after making your original statement.

So we can keep fine tuning the conditions until you say: ‘Yep, that’s it. That is now morally acceptable’. Would your personal opinion at that point make it an objective matter?

 

[Pug]

To the Christian, eating pork is fine. If a Jew eats pork he would consider it an immoral act as it goes against Gods command but is it objectively immoral? Can a moral law be objective to one group of people but not another?

To a Christian (Catholic) eating pork is not fine on, say, Good Friday. But it isn’t really pork that is the problem. It is the commitments of each as part of their identity. For example, I’ve never seen a Jew say a Catholic has to abstain from pork. I’ve more seen things like having a short list of laws/rules/suggestions/? for non-Jewish people, as descendants of Noah. Pork isn’t on that list of rules, AFAIK.