Objective Morality

[Vigile]

That is just reasoning from outrage. It's no foundation on which to base one's morality.

 

To a degree it is. Our morality is largely built on consensus. Rousseau called it the general will. The problem comes with the reasoning that a general consensus implies a universal law, when in fact it just implies that most people have been influenced by the opinions of others.

[Noggy]

Objective from what? Society? There are certain evolutionary behaviors that could be defined as moral, and we see them in mammals other than humans. That's about the closest you can get to objective morality outside of a god existing.

 

There are lots of philosophers out there that believe that there ARE objective moral facts without god existing. And the objective moral facts are objective from EVERYTHING. They are objectively true. Just as true as F=ma and such type things. Such as "Murder is wrong", etc.

 

 

You also seem to say that god's existence would make objective moral facts also exist, would you explain your reasoning?

 

And they are wrong. There is no objective morality. Everything can be justified given the right conditions, including murder.

 

Morality doesn't necesarrily have to be set rules about certain acts. Morality may very well be to "always help" and "never hurt". And if you helped by murdering someone, then there ya go. You'd have to be able to weigh it, but I think there is a reasonable, and therefore an objective moral decision to be made there. Check out those videos. They are a bit off topic, but he lays down the groundwork for secular objective morals.

[Vigile]

Not sure I follow your point.

 

It may be in our best interests to deem murder immoral, but that doesn't make the rule against it universal or objective. I can think of all kinds of subjective conditions that would make it reasonable and even right to commit murder. For example, if you could travel back in time and murder Hitler, would it be right or wrong?

[agnosticator]

I think Vigile made an important point that objective/universal morality can't be specified without becoming subjective, situational, or relative. Whenever I ask a theist to identify objective morals from the Throne, I get answers no different than secular morality. So, I see no possibility for purely objective morals. Morality is much more complex than just being objectively based.

[oddbird1963]

That is just reasoning from outrage. It's no foundation on which to base one's morality.

 

To a degree it is. Our morality is largely built on consensus. Rousseau called it the general will. The problem comes with the reasoning that a general consensus implies a universal law, when in fact it just implies that most people have been influenced by the opinions of others.

 

I see your point. And my viewpoint is somewhat like that in the hazy muddle of thoughts I'm trying to form about the subject of morality and reasoning morally.

 

I always seem to get back to the relationship of language to society as an analogy to morality. We're born into a language system (more than one in some places), we adopt vocabulary and dialects from those around us. And then through education we even branch out into new aspects of our languages. There is an outrage component to language as well. Just use incorrect grammar around my mother, a retired English teacher. You will see outrage.

 

As with morality, there seems to be no discernible objective basis for language. It grows and changes with the cultures that use them.

[Noggy]

Not sure I follow your point.

 

It may be in our best interests to deem murder immoral, but that doesn't make the rule against it universal or objective. I can think of all kinds of subjective conditions that would make it reasonable and even right to commit murder. For example, if you could travel back in time and murder Hitler, would it be right or wrong?

 

Just because peoples views on morals have changed doesn't mean there aren't moral facts. People's views over what stars are have changed, and we've only recently come to the conclusion of what they REALLY are. But they were the same objective piece of star, no matter what we believed. Are you denying the plausibility of the existence of moral facts?

[DesertBob]

To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality...

From a certain perspective, I suppose. But the truth is that morality is conformity to a standard of behavior ... and standards of behavior are inventions of individuals and groups. The morality that you or I subscribe to is really just a list of behaviors that we're willing to tolerate or not ... or that we insist we must or must not have. Christian (or purported "Biblical") morality is just another shit list among many -- nothing special.

 

That said, systems of morality can't be entirely arbitrary, other than in theory, because their entire purpose is to produce some kind of agreement for people to get along and function together. So if we arbitrarily say that, say, killing anyone you wish to at any time is acceptable, we will not long survive relative to groups that prohibit such killing -- this is, I suppose what the post I'm responding to is basically saying. Does that make them mystical universal laws? No ... just to what generally works and what generally does not.

[Vigile]

Not sure I follow your point.

 

It may be in our best interests to deem murder immoral, but that doesn't make the rule against it universal or objective. I can think of all kinds of subjective conditions that would make it reasonable and even right to commit murder. For example, if you could travel back in time and murder Hitler, would it be right or wrong?

 

Just because peoples views on morals have changed doesn't mean there aren't moral facts. People's views over what stars are have changed, and we've only recently come to the conclusion of what they REALLY are. But they were the same objective piece of star, no matter what we believed. Are you denying the plausibility of the existence of moral facts?

 

I'm denying that I know what a moral fact is. I've never heard the term and it makes no sense to me.

 

Do you mean, "Fact: People have morals"?

 

If so, I agree.

 

Do you mean, "Fact: Murder is immoral"?

 

If so, I say, it depends.

[AlphaToOmega]

Not sure why God is even mentioned in an objective look at morality.

The fact is there are many Gods.

Some are Gods of war.

If we are referring to the Christian God then by default we dismiss all other Gods and thus Christian morality is subjective or relative to this God.

 

If anything this goes to show that by introducing the concept of God and morality we demonstrate only one thing and that is morality from any God is subjective.

It does nothing however to show anything else.

[RankStranger]

Noggy, can you give a few more examples of "moral facts" or "objective morality"?

 

'Cause your 'murder is wrong' example is been pretty thoroughly shut down, and I'm gonna finish the job. "Muder is wrong" is a tautology. Murder is defined as illegal or wrong killing (seeings how it doesn't encompass accepted forms of killing). So you're essentially saying "killing that is wrong is wrong". And I suppose I'd have to agree with that... but it doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.

 

Is it wrong when a male grizzly bear kills a cub so that the female will go into heat again and he can get some bear-sex? Or are bears immune from right/wrong?

 

What if a man killed a kid so that the kid's mom would want to fuck again? Of course it'd be wrong- and the difference is that we humans have a society and we've decided that it's wrong.

 

What if those bears were as smart as us? Would that make a difference? What if those humans were as dumb as bears?

[agnosticator]

What if those humans were as dumb as bears?

 

I know some humans that are dumber than bears, and some more that are dumber than rocks.

[Ro-bear]

No such thing as objective morals, god or no god.

[paul34]

Certainly, there are certain topics of morality which seem to be "objective" in the sense that they seem to have evolved as a mechanism for basic social stability. Sam Harris is also attempting to answer the question of morality in a scientific way. You can find a TED talk he did on the topic on the internet. Granted, I haven't watched it, but Mr. harris is a smart guy.

 

For example, courtesy and helping someone in need. What if you're part of a small community of primates out in the jungle? If you help your neighbor who can't find food occasionally, chances are, if you're in need, he may help you out. We don't know what the exact intelligence level of primates are, but I think we can agree that they don't have the kind of higher-order moral reasoning of which we humans are capable. Nonetheless, primates are capable of this kind of behavior. It makes sense because it does indeed lead to a mutual increase in survivability.

 

But beyond that, I don't know. Why is slavery wrong? Why is rape wrong? Why is abusing children wrong? Why is homosexuality ok? Why is non-reproductive (pleasure) sex ok? I don't know if there is an "objective" answer to such things. Great arguments can be made, but ultimately, is there an objective source for the answers to those questions? I don't think so.

 

To me, much of our modern, Western moral sensibilities come from that relatively recent concept of ours, individual human rights. We are each humans, born free, and are sovereign individuals. We have certain rights and we should be able to live our lives as we please, so long as we don't tread on the rights of others to do the same. Where do these ideas come from? Well, we agreed on them. Some may claim they come from a particular deity, but I do not believe that is necessary. Society is able to agree on such things. I believe a society which has a Bill of Rights like the US runs in a way that is to the interest of the genuine happiness (or at least, a real opportunity to chase that happiness) for the greatest number of its citizens.

 

Slavery, rape, and child abuse are all wrong because it violates the rights of the individual in a very fundamental and vile way. It is the initiation of unjustified force against another, something that cannot be allowed in a society that is based on a concept of individual sovereignty and liberty. Sexual morality is a moot point because it is a private matter between consenting adults - again, the whole individual rights thing. None of society's business.

 

Murder is wrong - well, I think that's because of how we've defined "murder." We can zoom out a bit and look at the general act - homicide. In and of itself, homicide is not necessarily criminal. For example, if someone attempts to use unjustified physical force against me (like robbing me at knife or gunpoint, or forcing entry into my home), I will most likely use deadly force against him/her. I do not believe i am acting immorally. I am defending myself in what i believe to be a justified manner. That is not murder, although it is certainly homicide. But let's say the guy who broke into my house shot me before I could shoot him. He may believe it was self defense - but it is murder.

 

But then, what about an assassination during war? Let's face it, it is murder. But we put it into the special "assassination" category. Somehow, it becomes "ok" at that point, and depending on the circumstances, I may agree.

 

But murder as in killing someone because he insulted us, or had a consensual relationship with our wife/husband, or because he didn't uphold your "contract" - that is "wrong." Failing to discourage such a thing does not lead to a stable society. Laws do not necessarily prevent the crime, but they do give society a tool with which to capture and put away such proven threats to society. Obviously, the law and the enforcement thereof is far from perfect (as seen by all the innocent people in prison, combined with all the repeat offenders continuing to visit violence on society), but it is the best we can do for now. As we continue to evolve, I hope we can improve our systems.

[agnosticator]

Just because peoples views on morals have changed doesn't mean there aren't moral facts. People's views over what stars are have changed, and we've only recently come to the conclusion of what they REALLY are. But they were the same objective piece of star, no matter what we believed. Are you denying the plausibility of the existence of moral facts?

 

Don't you agree that morals began due to sentient beings possessing feelings of pain, pleasure, desires, grief, loneliness, belonging, love, hate, and other emotions? The facts of suffering and death that threatens existence must also have played a role in the birth of morality, I'd think. Without life, how could there be objective moral facts, and what would they be?

[Antlerman]

But we ARE the universe. We are a product of, and are the universe.

On the most basic level, we are indeed physically composed of the stuff of the universe. It could be no other way.

 

My opinion is that sentient beings are required to make "morality." Everything else occurring in nature lacks the ability to deem one thing as bad and another as good. Everything just is. We simply impose a thought process on it.

Ahh, you make the error of the Christian. You assume we are different than nature. This is a "human" invention so it's not nature! Really? We are nature. Nature is manifest in us. WYSIWYG. Our morality evolved through nature. Would you say that the roots of morality is a prehuman primate invention? That Bobo the ape invented it? Then why would our taking that which preceded humans and developing it in the ways suited to our species be somehow unique?

 

Where I see the mistake is in calling nature "physical", as you said above "pysically composed of the stuff of the universe". Our consciousness is also evolved like our physical bodies from the universe, as is evidenced in other speicies, including the roots of our morality in our ancestors. This is what I mean about the 'interior'. It's not just physical. It's social and cultural. It's cognitive. And it all comes from the universe.

 

 

To respond to the OP question of is there an objective morality in the sense of a 'fact' or presumably law of the Universe like the 'law' of gravity? I would say that morality is relative to the culture, and it is only a case of looking to contexts if you are looking for "objective" morality in the sense of some external standard, which is what you ask. However, I believe morality to be an expression of an internal state, which can and will disagree with the 'standards' of morality from time to time. "Love works no ill". If you have this state in you, then it is natural result of that internal condition. There is no need for 'objective standards'.

 

Morality is not imposed. Those are just rules. Morality is a flowering of the heart. IMHO. If there is an absolute morality it's this: Love. It is dynamic and flowing. It is a law of itself, through which all actions are informed.

[Casey]

Not sure why God is even mentioned in an objective look at morality.

The fact is there are many Gods.

Some are Gods of war.

If we are referring to the Christian God then by default we dismiss all other Gods and thus Christian morality is subjective or relative to this God.

 

If anything this goes to show that by introducing the concept of God and morality we demonstrate only one thing and that is morality from any God is subjective.

It does nothing however to show anything else.

 

Perhaps one should put it this way:

 

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. (Marcus Aurelius)

 

That'll do me.

Casey

[Vigile]

This is a "human" invention so it's not nature! Really?

I think you are making a semantic argument here. In the broadest sense, tools created by men are natural products of naturally evolved animals. But clearly there is a difference between a tree and a watch, which is why the watchmaker apologetic doesn't work. Science categorizes and in that sense, morality can rightly, I believe, be categorized as a product of the animals who adhere to it. Unlike a tree, it doesn't follow and is not limited by a specific set of rules in its development, as the rules differ from culture to culture. It is far more nuanced than mere cause and effect because even the effects also vary from culture to culture, depending on how each culture chooses to respond.

 

Categorizing morality apart from nature is just a way of stripping away the broader definitions in order to discuss it more easily.

 

We could argue that satellites are ultimately products of nature too, but adds nothing to a discussion on satellites other than sidetrack.

[skepticalme]

To say that morality must be universally objective or it must be individually subjective creates a false dichotomy. I have long held the view that human morality is objective to the human condition. What that means is that our morality is intertwined with the things that make our species what it is. These things are not universal and wouln't neccesarily hold true for another species. There are species that live by killing for food or kill eah other, there are species that live by stealing, there are species that reproduce by rape, there are species that are not monogamous. I could go on and on with examples.

 

If a species of parasite evolved to sentience, would they they see stealing as a virtue?

 

If a species that was purely herbivorous evolved to sentience, would they see all forms of killing as wrong?

 

How about a species that was purely predatory?

 

If a species that reproduced by rape evolved to sentience, would they see consentual sex as immoral?

 

 

A lot of our morals are contengent upon how and what our species evolved to be. Thats why we share so many of our morals with each other, because we are all human.

 

 

 

[Vigile]

To say that morality must be universally objective or it must be individually subjective creates a false dichotomy. I have long held the view that human morality is objective to the human condition. What that means is that our morality is intertwined with the things that make our species what it is. These things are not universal and wouln't neccesarily hold true for another species. There are species that live by killing for food or kill eah other, there are species that live by stealing, there are species that reproduce by rape, there are species that are not monogamous. I could go on and on with examples.

 

If a species of parasite evolved to sentience, would they they see stealing as a virtue?

 

If a species that was purely herbivorous evolved to sentience, would they see all forms of killing as wrong?

 

How about a species that was purely predatory?

 

If a species that reproduced by rape evolved to sentience, would they see consentual sex as immoral?

 

 

A lot of our morals are contengent upon how and what our species evolved to be. Thats why we share so many of our morals with each other, because we are all human.

 

Elegant post skepticalme. You filled in the details of the broader thoughts I've had on this subject helping me clarify my own position in my own mind. Thanks.