Objective Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All human reasoning is subjective. We do not have the ability to “flip a switch”, and know we are being objective. But it does not follow that objective truth (about morality or anything else) does not exist, nor that subjective human reasoning cannot access that truth. 🙂
Humans have intellect and will. Therefore they are not confined to subjective reasoning which might be considered in the category of animal sentience.

My suggestion is to check Wikipedia or a regular dictionary*.* Do be aware that knowing the difference leads to lots of difficulties in real life on CAF.

Of course, humans have to ability to “flip a switch” when it comes to using subjective or objective reasoning. In real time, a flipped switch is an inaccurate description because subjective - objective is not an “either/or” situation. The greater majority of the time, humans use both subjective and objective reasoning.

In my humble opinion, when it comes to objective morality the difficulty is that in our land subjective, which is often connected to relativity, is the apparent standard.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is unique in all the universe.
 
Well, what is knowledge? Some would say “justified true belief”. In this case, we know something if a) it is true, b) we believe it, and c) we have a good reason for believing it. This would always put second-order knowledge on a less stable basis than first-order knowledge, but it would not make it impossible, by any means.

Can subjective reasoning give us good reasons to believe something? I should say so. For example, I have good reason to believe that my daughter likes me. Still, my reasoning about the subject is hardly objective!
Subjective reasoning, how we feel, is used all the time but that does not exclude objective reasoning. Obviously, it is very hard to be objective in family relationships. Thus, objective reasoning is usually saved for the life or death situations.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16-17
 
Subjective reasoning, how we feel, is used all the time but that does not exclude objective reasoning. Obviously, it is very hard to be objective in family relationships. Thus, objective reasoning is usually saved for the life or death situations.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16-17
Granny,

I am puzzled as to what your definition is of “objective reasoning”. I can only see two possible definitions, myself:
  1. A type of action that is objectively reasoning.
  2. A type of reasoning that is completely unbiased, and works exclusively from true premises.
If you mean #1, then I agree that we objectively reason. But if you mean #2, then you need to provide a mechanism by which we might work exclusively from true premises. No Catholic I know of, no matter how optimistic about human capacities, believes that we are incapable of error. 🤷

So what is objective reasoning, pray tell?
 
If this is al true I find it shocking because it makes all of Lewis’s arguments for God’s existence in Mere Christianity utterly invalid, and it’s considered a classic of Christian apologetics.
Why shocking? There are no perfect arguments for or against the existence of God. Some may convince the choir, but put on a skeptic’s hat and they all have holes.
I’m trying to copy, as best I cam, the arguments of C.S. Lewis that he used in Mere Christianity. He did his best to establish natural law and objective morality first, as I’m tryng to, and then used it as evidence for the existence of God.
After spending way too much time on another thread, this is what I found: -

One of the weak points in natural law systems of ethics is that they require a catalog of moral goods, and choosing what goes into the catalog is fairly arbitrary.

For example, Aquinas includes procreation while other natural law philosophers don’t. As a result he can argue, e.g. against the homosexual act when other systems don’t reach that conclusion. The procreation argument in turn relies on teleology, the idea of final causes in the design of nature, which might be better classified as a belief rather than an argument as there seems no way of proving it from first principles.

Mind you, I didn’t find any system of ethics that is anything like water-proof.

There even seems to be a problem with how we define objectivity itself - “The very term objectivity is in question around the world; many scholars have now concluded the proper term lies closer to a collective subjectivity on what we all can agree to be independent of any one person’s opinion or perspective.” - Wikipedia

If I remember, Lewis himself argued that atheists also find Hitler immoral, but to jump from there to a God-given unchanging law of nature is surely a leap of faith. (I was pretty pleased with that poetic turn of phrase).
 
The procreation argument in turn relies on teleology, the idea of final causes in the design of nature, which might be better classified as a belief rather than an argument as there seems no way of proving it from first principles.
Yes, but *no *systems of morality derive from uncontroversial first premises. :o

So this doesn’t put a teleological system in any worse position than any other system.
 
Subjective reasoning, how we feel, is used all the time but that does not exclude objective reasoning. Obviously, it is very hard to be objective in family relationships. Thus, objective reasoning is usually saved for the life or death situations.
Hiya granny, long time no see.

The central question for me is whether Jesus wants us to be completely bound by a set of timeless rules.

If we start with “The human person is worthy of profound respect” and “All human life is sacred”, do we necessarily arrive at tablets of stone where everything is black and white?

I mean we can all invent gray scenarios: A known psychopath with a machete has broken into your house. He is now about to slaughter your only grandchild but you have a gun trained on him. Do you pull the trigger?
 
Granny,

I am puzzled as to what your definition is of “objective reasoning”. I can only see two possible definitions, myself:
  1. A type of action that is objectively reasoning.
  2. A type of reasoning that is completely unbiased, and works exclusively from true premises.
If you mean #1, then I agree that we objectively reason. But if you mean #2, then you need to provide a mechanism by which we might work exclusively from true premises. No Catholic I know of, no matter how optimistic about human capacities, believes that we are incapable of error. 🤷

So what is objective reasoning, pray tell?
I use two sources for the meaning of objective reasoning. I usually start with the basic words objective and subjective. I also follow links.
  1. *The American Heritage College Dictionary *
  2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
May I respectfully ask for the source of your two possible definitions. I am a tad familiar with experiential learning; thus, if that is your source, please expand with particulars and I will do my best to relate it to the definition which you chose from the common sources I listed.

I do realize that in some ancient societies, morality arises from some form of experiential type learning. Even so, most times it is possible to differentiate objective from subjective reasoning.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for spiritual truth needs Catholicism.
 
I think most of you are making a couple of mistakes…

When we are talking about an objective morality we are talking about an action that is considered “good”/“right” that is absolute, which is that something is “good” or “right” regardless of anyone’s opinion or subjective reasoning… This would imply that actions and objects have intrinsic value, which is independent on what different values we ascribe to them.

If one considers “freedom” intrinsically good without “God” (or another immaterial principle), one has no reasonable explanation to argue that it is “good” regardless of what anyone else thinks. That is why it has become common to discuss in ethics that objective morality are the principles that the majority agree on, but this would necessarily mean that we are not “free” because if we do not “agree” with that established “norm” we cannot exert our “freedom” in it. The problem being that this doesn’t make us more “right” because what we believe is “good” but we have the “might” to enforce it. Just as if the Nazis won WW2 (I know this is cliché but… bear with me…) what would now be “right” or “good” would necessarily be different.

I find the problem with subjective morality because we can only say that something is “good” or “bad” in how it relates to us. According to subjective morality there is no reason why someone stealing me is considered bad other than the fact that it is illegal… but it is illegal because most people “voted” it so (considered it as bad). In a sense democracy is the “tiranny of the many”, but then again our democracy is also the “tiranny of the few”…(but that is a subject for another thread). So the fact is that stealing is as bad as the majority thinks it so, and if the majority thinks otherwise what is right and what is wrong also changes… it makes it possible to create dictators and all sorts of things, just because the majority so wishes. (This is debatable)

The “problem” with objective morality is that people would have to admit that they are not the owners of the source for morality and so would have to model their behavior and thus would not have the “liberty” to act as he chooses and it being considered “right”.

It’s a problem of “pride” and “humility”. Humble people know that they are just part of humanity. Prideful people know that they are “right” and will not change their actions.

I would ask here if any person here that does believe in subjective morality has never done “wrong” and if so, why? I think most of you are making a couple of mistakes…

When we are talking about an objective morality we are talking about an action that is considered “good”/“right” that is absolute, which is that something is “good” or “right” regardless of anyone’s opinion or subjective reasoning… This would imply that actions and objects have intrinsic value, which is independent on what different values we ascribe to them.

If one considers “freedom” intrinsically good without “God” (or another immaterial principle), one has no reasonable explanation to argue that it is “good” regardless of what anyone else thinks. That is why it has become common to discuss in ethics that objective morality are the principles that the majority agree on, but this would necessarily mean that we are not “free” because if we do not “agree” with that established “norm” we cannot exert our “freedom” in it. The problem being that this doesn’t make us more “right” because what we believe is “good” but we have the “might” to enforce it. Just as if the Nazis won WW2 (I know this is cliché but… bear with me…) what would now be “right” or “good” would necessarily be different.

I find the problem with subjective morality because we can only say that something is “good” or “bad” in how it relates to us. According to subjective morality there is no reason why someone stealing me is considered bad other than the fact that it is illegal… but it is illegal because most people “voted” it so (considered it as “bad”). In a sense democracy is the “tyranny of the many” (ochlocracy), but then again our democracy is also the “tyranny of the few”…(but that is a subject for another thread). So the fact is that stealing is as bad as the majority thinks it so, and if the majority thinks otherwise what is right and what is wrong also changes… it makes it possible to create dictators and all sorts of things, just because the majority so wishes. (This is debatable) The fact of the matter is that “good” and “bad” things wouldn’t necessarily stay the same. This is considered evolutionary, but it does sound unreasonable because value is completely subjective and there’s no arguing it.

The “problem” with objective morality is that people would have to admit that they are not the owners of the source for morality and so would have to model their behavior, and thus would not have the “liberty” to act as he chooses and it being considered “right”.

It’s a problem of “pride” and “humility”. Humble people know that they are just part of humanity. Prideful people know that they are “right” and will not change their actions (humble in a very specific sense).

I would ask here if any person here that does believe in subjective morality has never done “wrong” (something they did that themselves consider to be wrong) and if so, why?

The answer to this question would probably shed a lot of light unto this matter.

Take care,
Daniel
 
Why shocking? There are no perfect arguments for or against the existence of God. Some may convince the choir, but put on a skeptic’s hat and they all have holes.
I didn’t need it to be foolproof, per se, but at least to open up lines of discussion. I seemed that this argument was just shot down q/o too much effort.

Also, if there’s NO good argument for the existence of God, well (and the atheists will just looooove this comment)…why believe in God?
 
Hiya granny, long time no see.
I’ve been hanging out in Back Fence Forum where I can post from both sides of my personality.:rolleyes:
The central question for me is whether Jesus wants us to be completely bound by a set of timeless rules.
There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus hung bleeding on a cross as the means of bringing salvation to all, and I do mean all. For me, timeless rules would govern how we are to respond to Our Savior. My apology, but this idea just popped into my head so I am not sure if it is appropriate
If we start with “The human person is worthy of profound respect” and “All human life is sacred”, do we necessarily arrive at tablets of stone where everything is black and white?
I would prefer to say that starting with “All human life is sacred” one would eventually and necessarily arrive at the two greatest commandments to love God and love one’s neighbor.
I mean we can all invent gray scenarios: A known psychopath with a machete has broken into your house. He is now about to slaughter your only grandchild but you have a gun trained on him. Do you pull the trigger?
I would pull the trigger enough times so that the gentleman with the machete either drops to the floor or drops the machete, whichever comes first. As they say in Alaska (where I have spent time with grandkids) don’t mess with a mother bear when she has cubs with her.

All human life is indeed sacred and each human person is worthy of profound respect.
This is because we alone can share with knowledge and love in the life of our
Creator–thus we are made in the Image of God. But God did not make us robots with advanced programming. We have the ability to scorn our Creator and choose detrimental behavior.

There is a moral imperative to protect the life of the gentleman with mental/emotional disorders and to protect the life of a defenseless innocent child. The feelings connected with this would be considered subjective since they arise from within us. Obviously, there would be subjective feelings of love for both since we are to love all people in imitation of Jesus

But, in the above scenario, the observance of the gentleman’s intention to kill is considered objective reality of detrimental behavior. An individual caught in one of these gray scenarios faces a choice. In the above scenario, I would base my actions on what I observed not on what I wish would happen if there were time to negotiate. The way the scenario is written, I have to act quickly and so I chose to protect the life of my grandchild as being morally correct.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature, body and soul, is a gift from God.
 
There even seems to be a problem with how we define objectivity itself - “The very term objectivity is in question around the world; many scholars have now concluded the proper term lies closer to a collective subjectivity on what we all can agree to be independent of any one person’s opinion or perspective.” - Wikipedia
Correction to the Wikipedia source listed in post 28.

I had meant to exclude this type of philosophical use of objective referenced in Wikipedia in post 24. My reason is that the connection to relativism changes the basic meanings of both subjective and objective. In fact, I have seen the meanings of each totally reversed in some posts.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
 
I use two sources for the meaning of objective reasoning. I usually start with the basic words objective and subjective. I also follow links.
  1. *The American Heritage College Dictionary *
  2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
May I respectfully ask for the source of your two possible definitions.
Most dictionaries will give you something like this for objective: “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.” (dictionary.com)

This is precisely the source of my definition #2. Reasoning is, by the same source, “the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.” Thus, “objective reasoning” is “the process of forming conclusions based on facts or premises, in an unbiased way.”

But all human reasoning is biased by our perspective. 🤷
I am a tad familiar with experiential learning; thus, if that is your source, please expand with particulars and I will do my best to relate it to the definition which you chose from the common sources I listed.

I do realize that in some ancient societies, morality arises from some form of experiential type learning. Even so, most times it is possible to differentiate objective from subjective reasoning.
I’m not clear on what you mean by “experiential learning.”
 
Originally Posted by Prodigal_Son forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Granny,

I am puzzled as to what your definition is of “objective reasoning”. I can only see two possible definitions, myself:

1. A type of action that is objectively reasoning.
2. A type of reasoning that is completely unbiased, and works exclusively from true premises.

If you mean #1, then I agree that we objectively reason. But if you mean #2, then you need to provide a mechanism by which we might work exclusively from true premises. No Catholic I know of, no matter how optimistic about human capacities, believes that we are incapable of error. 🤷


*So what is objective reasoning, pray tell? *
Most dictionaries will give you something like this for objective: “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.” (dictionary.com)

This is precisely the source of my definition #2. Reasoning is, by the same source, “the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.” Thus, “objective reasoning” is “the process of forming conclusions based on facts or premises, in an unbiased way.”

But all human reasoning is biased by our perspective. 🤷

I’m not clear on what you mean by “experiential learning.”
From your source: www.dictionary.com

Objective definitions

Number 6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

Number 7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather**** than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).

Number 8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

From your source: www.dictionary.com

Subjective definitions

Number 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).

Number 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind **as distinguished from general or universal **experience.

From The American Heritage College Dictionary

Objective definitions

Number 2. Having actual existence or reality.

Number 3b. Based on observable phenomena;

From The American Heritage College Dictionary

Subjective definitions

Number 1a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world:

Number 3. Existing only in the mind,

There is another definition/explanation for objective. My apology, I do not have the citations; however, it can be found in general Catholic teaching. There is an universal objective truth which means that it exists independently. Thus, this universal truth does not depend on the affirmation of any human. It exists before we were born and will exist after we die. Primarily, this universal truth is above and beyond nature as we know it on earth.

Regarding your statement: “But all human reasoning is biased by our perspective.”
Admittedly, my experience on CAF is limited. However, from what I have read here, apparently both
non-theists and theists hold to that statement. In my humble opinion, that is probably due to the influence of relativism.

Regarding your statement: "I’m not clear on what you mean by “experiential learning.”
No need to be concerned about it. I usually add it to my discussion with non-theists because it may help them to express their ideas regarding subjective reasoning and relativism. Actually, “experiential learning” is a mode of teaching which is used by very few teachers depending on geographical location. I came across it in Alaska on a junior high level.

To understand how objective and subjective applies to reasoning, there needs to be more discussion/(name removed by moderator)ut on your part. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

*Luke 24: 13-35 *
 
Also, if there’s NO good argument for the existence of God, well (and the atheists will just looooove this comment)…why believe in God?
Note I said no perfect arguments for or against - atheists are certainly not privileged.

Whatever we believe or do not believe, I think ultimately it doesn’t rest on logic alone, but then we’ve had that discussion before. 🙂 An act of random kindness isn’t necessarily rational (looking at your sig).
 
Regarding your statement: “But all human reasoning is biased by our perspective.”
Admittedly, my experience on CAF is limited. However, from what I have read here, apparently both non-theists and theists hold to that statement. In my humble opinion, that is probably due to the influence of relativism.
I’ll bite.

If you and I had different gods, scriptures and philosophies but both believe in a god-given objective mortality, we could go to war in the name of all that is holy.

It’s safer to assume that it is all subjective, or else that the only objective standard is fairly abstract such as “all human life is sacred”. Even then, a Buddhist might want “all life is sacred” and the Hopi would want “everything is sacred”. Likewise an atheist may have problems with the first part of Luke 10:27.

Without any commonly agreed way of arriving at objective imperatives, compromise and consensus is imho closer to Christ. Even if I’m way off base there, it’s just a whole lot safer.
 
Well, what is knowledge? Some would say “justified true belief”. In this case, we know something if a) it is true, b) we believe it, and c) we have a good reason for believing it.
Same question: How would one know?
 
Same question: How would one know?
If you can justify your belief that your opinion is true, and your opinion happens to be true, then you know.

And then if you can justify your belief that your opinion that your opinion is true is true, and your opinion that your opinion is true happens to be true, then you know. (Second-order knowledge).

And so on…

In my view, second-order and third-order knowledge are possibly quite rare.
 
I’ll bite.
and I’ll chew…slowly on the word objective.
If you and I had different gods, scriptures and philosophies but both believe in a god-given objective morality, we could go to war in the name of all that is holy.
Different gods, different scriptures, different philosophies could lead to different objective moralities which could lead to war. Even same gods, etc. could lead to war.
It is my observation that one way to get at this dilemma is to understand the difference between objective and subjective in relationship to a moral code.

Objective simply means something external and outside of the person’s mind, emotions, memory, knowledge, experience, desires, disappointments, and other qualities which can be personal to an individual. This objective something exists apart from a person.

A real table exists apart from the carpenter even though there is a strong relationship between them. One’s opinions and evaluations of the table’s beauty, design, size, usefulness, monetary value, durability, etc., arise from within the observer. These opinions and evaluations belong to the thinking person and would be considered subjective.

On the other hand, these opinions and evaluations could become objective when one measures the size of the table, tests its durability with a hammer, and compares its design with other tables. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a merchant can still compare the table to those his friends have in their homes in order to get an idea of what consumers consider beautiful.

Please let me know if you see the above as being in accord or not in accord with the definitions given in post 34. So that we can continue our discussion.

From there, I would like your opinion on what is actually being discussed on morality threads. To me, the examples of morals, morality or non-morality appear to be applications rather than the real thing. Applications can be freely chosen by humans based on all kinds of reasons connected to their geographical location. That is why I believe that the basic principle underlying moral or non-moral actions has to be separate from the whims of mankind.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
Different gods, different scriptures, different philosophies could lead to different objective moralities which could lead to war.
See, this is where you lose me. What do you mean by “different objective moralities”? There can only be one objective system of morality. 🤷

If we think of morality as an object (hence “objective”), this object can only have one nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top