Objective Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
Please refer to post 34.
Click to expand...
Ah, I hadn’t spotted that post, thanks. However, there is more than one definition there. Do you mean any particular one, or all?

And, it seems that your ‘universal truth’ does resolve to subjective opinion after all!
 
wanstronian said:
Well, is your definition of “universal truth” the one from Wikipedia, or the one you paraphrase in Post 34?
Click to expand...
I respect your intelligence to figure out a proper definition of “universal truth”.
Until we meet again…
Please refer to post 56, last paragraph.
 
Wanstronian

In other words, neither you nor anybody else can prove that abortion and gay marriage are objectively immoral, unless you can prove objective morality. Which you can’t.

I can prove it. But first I need to settle with you upon a definition of objective morality. Would you like to propose a definition, so that I can tell whether you really know what you are talking about when you insist there is no such thing as objective morality? You surely must have a clear idea of objective morality, or you would not bother to deny the existence of such a thing. :rolleyes:
 
wanstronian said:
Are you saying that if I don’t believe in objective morality, that’s not an opinion, it’s just that I’d prefer it not to be true? Because that’s clearly nonsense. Belief, or lack thereof, isn’t the same thing as preference!
Click to expand...
You said (to Granny, I believe) that it was your opinion that human beings are worthy of profound respect. To say it was your opinion implied that you believe it to be *true *-- which would commit you to objective morality.

Perhaps you just *prefer *that people be treated with respect?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
You said (to Granny, I believe) that it was your opinion that human beings are worthy of profound respect. To say it was your opinion implied that you believe it to be *true *-- which would commit you to objective morality.
Click to expand...
It’s my opinion that strawberries taste real yummy.

That’s not a fact claim; that’s a value claim. Not all opinions are objective facts.
 
grannymh said:
I respect your intelligence to figure out a proper definition of “universal truth”.
Until we meet again…
Please refer to post 56, last paragraph.
Click to expand...
Well, you introduced the term. It’s not my responsibility to define what you meant by it.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Wanstronian

In other words, neither you nor anybody else can prove that abortion and gay marriage are objectively immoral, unless you can prove objective morality. Which you can’t.

I can prove it. But first I need to settle with you upon a definition of objective morality. Would you like to propose a definition, so that I can tell whether you really know what you are talking about when you insist there is no such thing as objective morality? You surely must have a clear idea of objective morality, or you would not bother to deny the existence of such a thing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Objective morality, to me, means a code of morals that is immutable, universal, and holds true even if there are no sentient beings around to conform to it. The sort of code that God, if he existed, would put in place and say, “This is it. No deviations. No loose interpretations.”

That is the objective morality that I deny. Not because it implies the existence of God, but merely because morality is demonstrably a human concept, and changes over time and location.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
You said (to Granny, I believe) that it was your opinion that human beings are worthy of profound respect. To say it was your opinion implied that you believe it to be *true *-- which would commit you to objective morality.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, it does nothing of the sort.
Perhaps you just *prefer *that people be treated with respect?
Click to expand...
Yes - it’s my opinion that people should be treated with respect, and I prefer that they are. For a value claim, it’s perfectly reasonable to conflate the two. For a fact claim, it’s barmy. Pretend you are of the opinion that someone wants to kill you, and you’ll see the truth of this.
 
wanstronian said:
Objective morality, to me, means a code of morals that is immutable, universal, and holds true even if there are no sentient beings around to conform to it. The sort of code that God, if he existed, would put in place and say, “This is it. No deviations. No loose interpretations.”

That is the objective morality that I deny. Not because it implies the existence of God, but merely because morality is demonstrably a human concept, and changes over time and location.
Click to expand...
And does the human person change over time and location? Maybe add an eye in the back of the head where it would be useful? Wear strawberries as a coat in winter?
Become a robot with cute curly wires under a more durable scull so that there could be no deviations and no loose interpretations? Drive over the river when the bridge is out? Repair the bridge instead of swimming?

Deny objective morality whatever that is? Or look for the meaning of human life? Or look in the mirror?
 
Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921 Russian zoologist, Anarchist) identified mutual support within the species as the the most powerful agent of social and cultural development. Nature is the first teacher of Ethics and moral principles to humans. The social instinct, innate in humans, lies at the origins of all Ethics and all evolutions in morals. The altruistic social instinct prevails over egotistical and transitory instincts.

Ethics tends to offer all an ideal that will guide and encourage them to act instinctively in the desired direction.

Peter Kropotkin is very different than Darwin. His key rule is: Mutual aid is the dominant factor in Nature.

He thought that Christianity and Buddhism were unique in developing the natural love, equity, and generosity. And that the religions of Egypt, Persia and India, except Buddhism, saw nature as a conflict between good and evil. This dualilstic idea came to influence Christianity.

Religions that emphasize universal love and social equality generally have a positive view of the natural world.

Religions that are allied with social hierarchy and domination have negative views of nature and justifications for dominating it.
 
grannymh said:
And does the human person change over time and location? Maybe add an eye in the back of the head where it would be useful? Wear strawberries as a coat in winter?
Become a robot with cute curly wires under a more durable scull so that there could be no deviations and no loose interpretations? Drive over the river when the bridge is out? Repair the bridge instead of swimming?

Deny objective morality whatever that is? Or look for the meaning of human life? Or look in the mirror?
Click to expand...
Er, what?
 
wanstronian said:
Yes - it’s my opinion that people should be treated with respect, and I prefer that they are. For a value claim, it’s perfectly reasonable to conflate the two.
Click to expand...
By which, you mean that the two mean exactly the same thing, right? To express a value is simply to say that you prefer something to be a certain way.

But then, I think it’s a bit unhelpful – in a serious conversation like this – for a subjectivist to say that they have an *opinion *about a moral claim. Rather, you might say, “I prefer that, too.”
For a fact claim, it’s barmy. Pretend you are of the opinion that someone wants to kill you, and you’ll see the truth of this.
Click to expand...
Huh?

“I am of the opinion that someone wants to kill me” = “I think someone wants to kill me”.

This is a fact claim. Just like any other fact claim, it could be wrong. 🤷

It would be quite a different thing to say that I *feel *like someone wants to kill me. This would not be a fact claim, of course.
 
wanstronian said:
Er, what?
Click to expand...
What is morality? Really? Is it blue morality? Canadian morality? Weekend morality? Objective morality?

Those who remember 5th grade English will say that objective as in objective morality is an adjective. Objective is used as a description like blue, Canadian, or weekend.

Er, what should the posts be directed to? The descriptive word (adjective) objective? Or the subject (noun) morality?

Post 71 makes more far sense than defining “Objective morality, to me, means a code of morals” …followed by qualifiers “that is immutable, universal, and holds true even if there are no sentient beings around to conform to it.” Found in Post 69.

Er, what is a moral?

If someone is going to deny objective morality, means a code of morals, --?–
Shouldn’t someone be able to tell me what a moral is?

However, in my humble opinion, those who wish to promote objective morality should be able to define what they are promoting. Thus, it is necessary for them to define a morality.

Shouldn’t someone, pro or con, be able to tell me what a “morality” is and what a “moral” is?
 
grannymh said:
On what did you base your opinion?
Click to expand...
What difference does it make? If I am of the opinion that someone wants to kill me, this implies that I believe such a state of events to be true. That is all that Wastronian and I were trying to hash out.

The basis of my opinion matters to whether my opinion is accurate. But even if I am crazy, it is still true that I believe my opinion on x to be true of x.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
What difference does it make? If I am of the opinion that someone wants to kill me, this implies that I believe such a state of events to be true. That is all that Wastronian and I were trying to hash out.

The basis of my opinion matters to whether my opinion is accurate. But even if I am crazy, it is still true that I believe my opinion on x to be true of x.
Click to expand...
It makes a huge difference as to whether one is living in the ivory tower or on the street.

How can one believe in a state of events when one hasn’t a clue as to what they are? In the ordinary world, an event gives rise to an opinion. Even if one imagines an event, one still should know
what it is.

Maybe I should rephrase my question. Why would you opine that someone wants to kill you? A psychotic break with reality is an answer which properly belongs in a different thread. We are talking about normally operating humans, aren’t we?
 
grannymh said:
It makes a huge difference as to whether one is living in the ivory tower or on the street.

How can one believe in a state of events when one hasn’t a clue as to what they are? In the ordinary world, an event gives rise to an opinion. Even if one imagines an event, one still should know
what it is.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of the above.
Maybe I should rephrase my question. Why would you opine that someone wants to kill you? A psychotic break with reality is an answer which properly belongs in a different thread. We are talking about normally operating humans, aren’t we?
Click to expand...
I don’t think someone wants to kill me. We were using the phrase as an example. :coffeeread:
 
grannymh said:
Shouldn’t someone, pro or con, be able to tell me what a “morality” is and what a “moral” is?
Click to expand...
“morality - a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest” – Cambridge

I’m saying that it is an abstraction for a set of thoughts, decisions and actions. There is no need to postulate a “moral center” in our minds, although neuroscience may give us an answer. Personally, I find the homosexual act repulsive but not immoral, exactly the same as for Japanese opera. I am not disconnected from some moral cosmos in those decisions but am simply making a value judgment based on my experiences and beliefs. Morality is not an object, it is a collection of instincts and learned responses that we lump together after the fact.

If we disagree about the morality of Japanese opera then we need to collectively look at it from all angles and then make personal decisions in love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top