What are the “objective moralities/truths”? Is there a list?

[Bradskii]

No, really. The fact that they are stating that there IS no objective truth means that they expect to argue from that basis, cutting away any attempt by you or other to say otherwise. “But what about?” “SORRY, there IS no objective truth” (repeat, repeat).

Objective truth means something that is really the case, whether somebody believes or not. It isn’t relative, meaning that it’s only true if somebody ‘wishes’ to accept it, or at certain times, or for certain people.

So claiming that there are NO objective truths (and yes, shooting down every single example’ and claiming, “you cannot show me an objective truth” is stating that, because one knows from experience that there is, and has been, NOTHING that will be accepted as objective truth by the person), is stating, “There is no objective truth. Truths are ONLY relative”, and again, that is a statement claiming as objective truth that there can BE no objective truth.

I think that I need to point out the following:

If something is absolute, then it is not qualified by anything. If it is qualified, then it is relative.
If something is objective, then it is not influenced by personal preferences. If it is, then it is subjective.

‘Killing is wrong’ is an absolute statement.
‘Killing for fun is wrong’ is a relative statement.

‘My car is red’ is an objective statement.
‘Red cars are the best’ is a subjective statement.

 

[Dan123]

‘Killing is wrong’ is an absolute statement.
‘Killing for fun is wrong’ is a relative statement.

‘My car is red’ is an objective statement.
‘Red cars are the best’ is a subjective statement.

I generally find we’re on the same page on these types of threads but I’d actually disagree on point 2. I’d say “killing for fun is wrong” is still absolute using the standards you defined. You’re not really qualifying the act, you’re describing the act you’re then indicating to be right or wrong, it’s more a specificity thing than a qualification.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

‘Killing is wrong’ is an absolute statement.
‘Killing for fun is wrong’ is a relative statement.

‘My car is red’ is an objective statement.
‘Red cars are the best’ is a subjective statement.

I generally find we’re on the same page on these types of threads but I’d actually disagree on point 2. I’d say “killing for fun is wrong” is still absolute using the standards you defined. You’re not really qualifying the act, you’re describing the act you’re then indicating to be right or wrong, it’s more a specificity thing than a qualification.

I would say that the act is qualified. Just once admittedly. But consider this:

Killing a young man in a war zone if he is considered to be an enemy combatant and he is carrying a loaded weapon with intent to use it against someone…is wrong.

Now that is qualified to the max. There are about 8 aspects of that scenario each of which you could further qualify which would render the act of killing him immoral (maybe he was 6 years old, maybe he was going to shoot someone raping his mother etc). So describing it as morally wrong or not is entirely dependent on any number of qualifications. ‘Killing him is wrong’ cannot be decided without each of those qualifications being introduced into the evaluation.

Without those qualifications it is an absolute statement. One which is impossible to judge as being correct or not.

The only difference between the statement above and the one in the earlier posts is the number of qualifications.

 

[Dan123]

Sure but then there’s hidden(assumed) qualifications. When you said killing is wrong did you mean killing people? I’m not convinced anyone is genuinely making absolute claims the way you’re using the term so perhaps I just don’t see the utility in it.

I feel I’ve personally seen moral absolutes more in the sense of “x is always wrong”, which I tend to reject. So the conclusion is unqualified even if the act has qualifications. Unfortunately that’s abused often as with “murder is always wrong”. Well of course it is, “wrong” is part of the definition of murder so it’s just a tautology.

And usually folks appealing to objective morality are keying in on the unchanging universal nature of it, which we’ve seen in this and other threads they’re happy to make excuses for based on the laws of the day and the local culture, the exact thing they’ll turn around and belittle as moral relativism from others.

 

[Bradskii]

People often make absolute statements without qualifications based on religious beliefs. As in: ‘Stealing is always wrong’ or ‘Lying is always wrong’. Neither of which stand alone. Are you stealing a gun from a terrorist? Are you stealing food so that your child might live? Are you saying that there are no Jews in the basment? It depends.on the situation. It is relative to the situation. So ‘Stealing is wrong’ and ‘Lying is wrong’ are indeed absolute statements but they cannot be addressed as they stand.

But I agree about the hidden qualifications.

I have always been asked: ‘When is rape not absolutely wrong’. To which my response is that there are implied (hidden) qualifications. That is:

Is a sexual act immoral if it is perfomed by an act of force or coercion or in a situation where the other person is not in a position to give consent.

To me that is objectively wrong. Whether anyone might think it right or not. But not absolutely wrong because the wrong is relative to the situation.

 

[Gorgias]

Jews have a different list (no pork)

You’re confusing religious tradition with “objective morality”.

There is more than one list.

By definition, then, at least all of them but one (and maybe all of them) aren’t “objective truth/morality”. And you’re right: the question is one of justification. Christians justify on the basis of the divinity of Christ. If one chooses to disbelieve that Jesus is God, what chance is there that they’ll agree His laws are the objective truth?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

So, I’m making my way through St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, so he is popping up in my posts a lot as of late.

He has a wonderful section on Natural Law that might help you with the idea of objective truths.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm

In general, St. Thomas Aquinas is an excellent resource for the defense of the faith against atheism because he relies on classical reasoning for his proofs.

 

[QwertyGirl]

So I’m gathering that there ARE many lists (Christians, Jewish, Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists, Humanists, etc) yet, there IS an amazing amount of overlap (Murder is bad, marriage between man and woman is sacred, rape is bad, molesting children is bad, etc). Why is that (question for the Atheists)?

Agnostic here. Not an atheist, but i believe the answer to your question is that the laws you itemized that seem generally accepted are such because when one person commits the act, another person is harmed. This is why the marriage argument is up for debate, because two consenting adults aren’t harming each other in any way…at least nomoreso than any other set of consenting adults). I only bring this up because you included it on your list with murder, child molestation and rape. It really shouldn’t be included on the lst, since there it isn’t included in the “overlap” issues the same as the rest.

 

[Gorgias]

i believe the answer to your question is that the laws you itemized that seem generally accepted are such because when one person commits the act, another person is harmed.

That’s not an objective measure, however. It leaves open the question “what is harm?” As you point out in your example, one may rationalize away the question of ‘harm’:

This is why the marriage argument is up for debate, because two consenting adults aren’t harming each other in any way

See what I mean? You’ve replaced “harm” with “consent”. That’s a subjective consideration. “Consenting to harm” doesn’t change the objective truth that there is, in fact, still harm.

 

[Dan123]

See what I mean? You’ve replaced “harm” with “consent”. That’s a subjective consideration. “Consenting to harm” doesn’t change the objective truth that there is, in fact, still harm .

But it’s not demonstrable in the same way. Some would consider adhering to a religion harm, but that’s not really demonstrable so we don’t seek to ban it. Some consider gay marriage harmful, but it’s not demonstrable so we don’t seek to ban it. Killing is demonstrably harmful, so we do ban it, though some societies allow it in certain situations such as self defense or capital punishment. Even there it’s a comparison of the harm or potential harm of not killing, as in “if I don’t kill this person, they’re going to kill me or someone I’m defending”, against the harm of killing. The very reason I’m against the death penalty, I don’t see harm coming from someone locked up for life.

If people agree on definitions of harm then you absolutely can make objective proclamations about acts like child abuse and gay marriage. There will always be an element of subjectivity in the measurement and evaluation but that’s part of what society does, deal with that disparity.

 

[Gorgias]

But it’s not demonstrable in the same way.

Not necessarily true. Spouses who are battered – emotionally or physically – give consent, and the abuse is demonstrable and discernable.

If people agree on definitions of harm then you absolutely can make objective proclamations about acts

You see the inherent contradiction in your statement, don’t you? You’re positing that, if all people make a personal, subjective decision, then we can claim it’s an objective assertion. There’s not an “element of subjectivity” – it’s a completely subjective process!

First of all, that’s not the definition of what objective is. Second, it would force people living now to make an ‘objective’ decision on behalf of those who will be living later. So… no – your suggestion is, a priori, unworkable.

 

[Dan123]

If you and I agree that things which are ‘healthy’ are those that provide an overall benefit to one’s physical and mental wellbeing then we can agree drinking battery acid is unhealthy. We may not however agree that eating vegetarian is healthy because while there can be health benefits there are also detriments in certain nutrients. While those detriments can be compensated for it would be difficult to make an objective statement about vegetarianism itself, as it’s a mixed bag.

That’s what I meant when I said it’s contingent on agreeing to definitions. You can make the objective statements if you’re talking about the same, measurable thing. Health is a very subjective thing but there are objective facts with in it. I’d say morality is similar.

In your example a battered spouse will have physical injuries or emotional scars that can be measured. What’s the equivalent with gay marriage?

 

[Gorgias]

While those detriments can be compensated for it would be difficult to make an objective statement about vegetarianism itself, as it’s a mixed bag.

The question of whether ‘vegetarianism’ is healthy (or, more to the point, whether vegetarianism should be enforced), though, is a distinct issue from the question, “is it healthy to eat vegetables?”

The latter question is objective; the former is subjective.

In your example a battered spouse will have physical injuries or emotional scars that can be measured. What’s the equivalent with gay marriage?

Notice, however, that you’re still working with the notion of ‘harm’ as the sole motivator for objective morality. Christians would disagree with that assertion: it’s not the human consensus of harm that’s the source of moral standards – it’s the natural moral law (aka ‘Divine Law’)!

 

[rossum]

You’re confusing religious tradition with “objective morality”.

Since the rule against eating pork is objectively written in the Tanakh, the Bible and the Qur’an it is certainly an “objective” rule.

Is it a “moral” rule? That depends on the definition of “moral” as opposed to “religious tradition”. Some religions worship a single God, others have many gods. Is the worship of a single God (and no other) a moral rule or a religious tradition?

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Since the rule against eating pork is objectively written in the Tanakh, the Bible and the Qur’an it is certainly an “objective” rule.

Poor logic. By this standard, anything written down is “objectively written”, and therefore, is an “objective rule.”

 

[rossum]

Poor logic. By this standard, anything written down is “objectively written”, and therefore, is an “objective rule.”

Why? Something independently written is objective, not subjective. You may not agree with the contents of the Bhagavad Gita but you must agree that it objectively exists.

Your opinion of the Gita is subjective, but the Gita itself has an objective existence apart from any subjective opinions.

Some writings are rules, others are not. The Abrahamic God’s admonition not to eat pork is certainly a rule. There is an argument about how far the rule applies.

rossum

 

[Dan123]

You said ““Consenting to harm” doesn’t change the objective truth that there is, in fact, still harm”

And I said if you want to claim there’s harm demonstrate it. It was pointed out that in your list of examples all but one included direct measurable harm as the reason why some are enforced and others aren’t.

If you want to stick to it being against divine law that’s fine. Though it’s sill subjective as one could ask which law(s), which god, or ultimately why should one seek to follow divine law at all. The answers are of course obvious within a Christian and Catholic worldview but the presence of other faiths and other interpretations of the same law suggests even if ther is an objective moral law, determining what it is includes subjectivity.

 

[Dan123]

Do you believe one or more of those books to be the inerrant word of God?

 

[Kei]

Look to natural law for instance.

Don’t make the mistake of counting all religious prohibitions to be moral in nature.

 

[Bradskii]

Dan123:

But it’s not demonstrable in the same way.

Not necessarily true. Spouses who are battered – emotionally or physically – give consent, and the abuse is demonstrable and discernable.

If people agree on definitions of harm then you absolutely can make objective proclamations about acts

You see the inherent contradiction in your statement, don’t you? You’re positing that, if all people make a personal, subjective decision, then we can claim it’s an objective assertion. There’s not an “element of subjectivity” – it’s a completely subjective process!

First of all, that’s not the definition of what objective is. Second, it would force people living now to make an ‘objective’ decision on behalf of those who will be living later. So… no – your suggestion is, a priori, unworkable.

I’m sure you didn’t mean that women consent to be abused. Perhaps you could confirm that.

And any discussions on any matter depend on those discussing it agreeing to the definitions of the terms being used. That’s not bringing subjectivity into the discussion. It’s plain common sense. If we are discussing miracles for example, we need to both agree what is meant by the term. If we are discussing harm, then the same applies.

And it’s no good using examples of harm as your definition. We need to define it so that we can see if it applies to any examples we use. And the definition must be demonstrable. As it is with harm.

So I would define harm as something that has a demonstrable negative impact on a person, be that physical, psychological, emotional etc. So if you smack someone about the head, it’s harmfull. If you bully a person, it’s harmful. If you beat your wife, it’s harmful.

If you want to prove that something more esoteric is harmful, such as sex for its own sake, then you need to demonstrate it as opposed to simply claiming it.