Is there such a thing as objective morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wozza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want exceptions then you need to voice your personal opinion on the matter. We can compare them to what others think.
No, I really don’t need to alter your hypothetical. Again, I don’t want exception but am willing to analyze any changes you may care to make.
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.
Nope, didn’t write that at all. I wrote:
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.
And I can guarantee that your views would be in direct opposition to very many people.
Doesn’t matter what other people may or may not think or may or may not feel. That’s why morality is objective. Again, make the argument that opposes the morality of state surveillance.
You even adjusted yours after making your original statement.
Nope. Didn’t do that either.
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?
I already wrote that the law was moral ? And, my personal opinion doesn’t matter.

Why keep going around with me on this? Perhaps the reason you will not make your argument against the morality of state surveillance is that you have none.
 
I will confess to merely skimming and not thoroughly reading the 144 previous posts. But I would say that nearly everyone believes in some kind of morality, which they believe to be objective. The difference is between how they define “objective morality” - which sometime turns on what is the object? Most religious people are used to deontological moral systems - systems that decide morality of an act based on the act itself, or the nature of the act. Often they believe that the morality of the acts have been established by God and are not to be questioned, and need not be logical. But a lot of people subscribe to consequentialist morality - where morality is based on the outcome of the act, not on the act or its nature. They typically hold that the morality of an act depends on whether it increases or decreases the collective good (or utility).

Of course, in practice most people do a little of both, even if they think they are subscribing to one model or the other.

As to whether either of those systems - rules based or outcome based - is truly “objective” or not is subject to debate. None seem truly objective to me. All systems rely on someone’s judgment as to what is right, or wrong. Likely to increase utility, or decrease it. Please God, or offend Him. A lot of subjectivity in all of those systems, in my opinion.
 
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.
Huh? We are not even speaking the same language.

Ironically, you prove the point against subjectivity with this:
we can personally decide if they are relevant.
What you don’t get is, that is what causes the problem of genocide to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t matter what other people may or may not think or may or may not feel. That’s why *morality is objective.
So your decision that the law is justified, under whatever conditions you would personally prefer to nominate, that is the objective view? Your personal opinion is also the objective view?

How do we know this? Many other people will give me different arguments against it. How do I know who is right?

Let’s cut to the chase. I’m not interested in making an argument for or against. The hypothetical was used to show you that even one person (you) needs to fine tune the conditions of an act to make it acceptable. And that obviously people would disagree with you and require further ammendments.

So what it comes down to, as we have seen, is personal judgement being brought to bear on a given act in order to declare it morally acceptable or not.

If that’s your definition of objective morality, then thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wozza:
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.
Huh? We are not even speaking the same language.

Ironically, you prove the point against subjectivity with this:
we can personally decide if they are relevant.
What you don’t get is, that is what causes the problem of genocide to begin with.
Obviously. When we personally decide, or allow others to decide for us, what is right and wrong, then there is no guarantee that we’ll be able to look back and think ‘Yeah, good decision there’.

But one more time…if we don’t work through these problems individually (or we allow others to do it on our behalf which I would NOT recommend), then what is the other option? Is someone going to give you a set of decisions for every act for every contingency?

Obviously not. You, you personally have to take responsibility and make your opinions known. Objective morality, by definition, means moral acts that are independent of your personal opinion. Or mine. Or anyone elses.

And one more time…if we don’t work through them ourselves and come to decisions about these matters ourselves, then where are the answers to all these problems to be found?
 
Last edited:
Chris would make an argument - because a simple ‘It’s wrong because it’s wrong’ isn’t going to get him anywhere.
God is the one who says what is wrong and what is not. However, even an atheist person realize there are just some things which are evil and should not be done (for example cheating on your marriage).

How can we all know this, even though we all live in different cultures, countries and have different backgrounds? Well because our conscience and morality does not depend on our religion, but rather it is a built-in mechanism which all human beings have.

Christ however raised the bar considerably on what things are evil and sinful (“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Mathew 5:28).

We cannot trust ourselves to determine right from wrong, we will always justify everything we do regardless of what God or Jesus says.
 
Last edited:
God is the one who says what is wrong and what is not.
There are many areas where God is silent. Does that mean that certain moral questions that pertain to our modern world that we can’t extrapolate from the words we do have are amoral or not objective?
 
That’s why morality is objective.
I don’t see much point in discussing whether or not morality is objective if people cannot tell me straight out (yes or no) whether or not:
  1. slavery is morally wrong objectively.
  2. torture is morally wrong objectively.
 
You aren’t saying you want to watch ME individually. You are talking of, per your scenario, every person in the world, right? You aren’t saying you want to watch me for a prurient reason; you specifically stated you wanted the surveillance to protect from terrorists.

You can’t change horses in the middle of the stream.
 
Chattel slavery is morally wrong, objectively. But the way a lot of individuals have accepted as ‘normal’ or ‘moral’ happens to be the way people in some societies at some times have defined as slavery.

People speak of being, “A slave to my wife’s wants”, “a slave to the time clock”, doing slave labor, ‘slaving away’, etc.

In economic systems where exchange of labor was required as opposed to exchange of goods, for an individual to ‘sell himself into slavery’ (usually to feed a family) might have been a workable system that was seen as moral for the time, but either is no longer a viable system or people have grown to see the possibilities for system abuse and the personal degradation of making a ‘person’ into a ‘thing’.

The morality of ‘owning a person, body and soul’ is objectively morally wrong’; only God is our Maker and ‘Owner’. But people did not always realize this clearly, precisely because the way people see slavery has not always been clear-cut.

Torture, also, is morally wrong objectively. The fact that people’s understanding of what torture ‘accomplishes’ and that some looked to ‘the end justifies the means’, or felt that there were ‘degrees’ where something stopped short of unacceptable pain (remember, people still do not understand the way pain works in an individual, and why some people can withstand much higher degrees of pain than others) means again that people’s understanding develops, and that also people tend to try to justify things which make them uncomfortable when they are recognizing that something is wrong, but feel that there is somehow a necessity to do it anyway.

It all comes from people being human; from them never getting things ‘perfectly right’, and from, one way or another, individuals making mistakes. The fact that people made mistakes for years, or make mistakes now, in being able to see where things are objectively wrong, doesn’t make the things just ‘relatively’ wrong or right because the PEOPLE don’t ‘follow the rules’.
 
40.png
Wozza:
Chris would make an argument - because a simple ‘It’s wrong because it’s wrong’ isn’t going to get him anywhere.
God is the one who says what is wrong and what is not.
Except He tells different thing to different people. At least, a lot of them claim that He tells them. Who can I trust?
 
40.png
o_mlly:
That’s why morality is objective.
I don’t see much point in discussing whether or not morality is objective if people cannot tell me straight out (yes or no) whether or not:
  1. slavery is morally wrong objectively.
  2. torture is morally wrong objectively.
Let’s look at torture. Before you can answer such a question, you have to define the terms. And everyone has to agree. So is torture the threat of harm or actual harm? Is it incredible pain or mild discomfort? Is it physical or mental?

What you will discover is that everyone will draw the line somewhere under certain conditions. From doing absolutely nothing at all, not even shouting at someone (psychological torture) to water boarding and worse.

So what’s your personal opinion?
 
40.png
Pattylt:
There are many areas where God is silent.
I am not aware of any major moral area where the Catholic Church has not provided guidance.
Having a few rules whereby you can use to work out the answer for yourself and God actually saying what is wrong or right are two different things.
 
You aren’t saying you want to watch ME individually. You are talking of, per your scenario, every person in the world, right? You aren’t saying you want to watch me for a prurient reason; you specifically stated you wanted the surveillance to protect from terrorists.

You can’t change horses in the middle of the stream.
Everyone includes you. Why would you be any different to everyone else? You personally will be under watch 24/7. As will everyone else.

Do you have an opinion as to whether that is morally acceptable?
 
You can trust Catholic Church teachings, dogma and doctrines. It is the only Church Christ authorized to give us the full means of salvation.
 
So what it comes down to, as we have seen, is personal judgement being brought to bear on a given act in order to declare it morally acceptable or not.
No, we have not seen that “it comes down to personal judgement.”

Perhaps the reason that those who think morality is subjective do so because they govern their acts with their emotions rather than their intellect. If it “feels” good therefore it is good.

No one can argue against how another feels. One can argue against the way another thinks as we are rational beings. Paradoxically, to argue productively, debaters must first agree on principles. But if one offers no principles from which they argue then further exchange is pointless.
 
Last edited:
You can trust Catholic Church teachings, dogma and doctrines. It is the only Church Christ authorized to give us the full means of salvation.
Yes, for the sake of this discussion I will accept that completely. Now if you can point me to the specific teachings on public surveillance or the use of drones then we can check to see what the church has to say about them.

If you come up empty handed, then just tell me how you personally come to a decision about these matters.
 
40.png
Wozza:
So what it comes down to, as we have seen, is personal judgement being brought to bear on a given act in order to declare it morally acceptable or not.
No, we have not seen that “it comes down to personal judgement.”

Perhaps the reason that those who think morality is subjective do so because they govern their acts with their emotions rather than their intellect. If it “feels” good therefore it is good.

No one can argue against how another feels. One can argue against the way another thinks as we are rational beings. Paradoxically, to argue productively, debaters must first agree on principles. But if one offers no principles from which they argue then further exchange is pointless.
Who do you mean by ‘they govern their acts with their emotions’? Seems not an ideal way to determine morality. If you see one of ‘them’ then tell me I said so. ‘If it feels good it must be good’ is not the worst argument I’ve heard this month. But it’s close.

And I say so because we should use our intellect. Just the way I suppose you use yours when you decide if something is morally acceptable or not. Then we can, as you say, debate the matter as rational beings.

And hadn’t I offered my principles and you offered yours? I’m pretty much in agreement with yours. Object, intent, purpose. All good. I’ve just proposed that we start with harm and decide if harm has been committed. There doesn’t seem to be much point in deciding if harmless acts are moral or not.
 
40.png
Wozza:
So what it comes down to, as we have seen, is personal judgement being brought to bear on a given act in order to declare it morally acceptable or not.
No, we have not seen that “it comes down to personal judgement.”

Perhaps the reason that those who think morality is subjective do so because they govern their acts with their emotions rather than their intellect. If it “feels” good therefore it is good.

No one can argue against how another feels. One can argue against the way another thinks as we are rational beings. Paradoxically, to argue productively, debaters must first agree on principles. But if one offers no principles from which they argue then further exchange is pointless.
This all day.
Shape-shifting and vague/subjective language usage does not produce rational discussion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top