The case for objective morality

Author: WyIted
Morality
Ethics
penis length

Posts

Total: 48
Topic's author
#1
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I want to start by saying that objective morality is true. You can speculate as to whether that means a God does exist or if it is some sort of evolutionary thing.  I don't care.

We need to start by defining what objective means. Objective just means that something is u iversally true for the most part. There is no place for stupid shit like pointing out a single exception. By single I mean a single person not a culture. We all share the same moral foundations. If I say that humans have 2 legs. We'll We know that some humans have one leg or 2, or even in some cases 3, but it is just a weakness of the human language and we know that nearly every human has 2 legs. So we say the statement that "humans have 2 legs" is objectively true.

Now that I have dealt with the exception criticism of people pointing out that perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer has different morals than me, I think we need to handle another objection to objective morality. Some would say that cats or dogs or alligators murder without a second thought, but this is where moral agency comes in. Animals are not on the same level of consciousness as humans. They are not moral agents. The only known moral agents are humans, so if we can prove that morality is objectively the same in humans (just as 2 legs are) than it can be said morality is objective.

prime morals

I want to talk about what I call prime morals. Humans share the same prime morals. We all think it is wrong to kill a child for fun. No society in the history of man would disagree. You will see some societies ask women to cover their head, others their ankles and some societies just ask that we don't expose our genitalia in public. 

At first glance this may seem like different morals, but it in fact is not. We all intuitively have the same morals, they are just expressed and interpreted differently for different cultures.

For example the moral virtue known as modesty. All cultures have it. Some interpret it to mean covering a person's face and ankles, some interpret it to mean only cover genitalia and yet others take it to mean no having sex in front of children,  but it is all an expression of the same morality. 

The same with murder. The prime moral would be no murdering without a good reason. Now different cultures will interpret what "good reason" means but it is none the less the prime morality at play. 

conclusion

we all have the same morals but they are merely expressed differently. There is a shared moral sense among humanity and since humans are the only moral agents it makes morality objective


Topic's author
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Casey_Risk
There you have it. Morality is objective. I wrote this while sitting on a bus from memory of research I did 10 years ago. 
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I just think its objectively true that everyone should have freedom and passion.
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Heard it in a song.
#5
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@WyIted
Would you say that all morality is objective or just some aspects of it such as your aforementioned "prime morals"?
#6
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,031
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
-->
@WyIted
I'm busy at work rn, I'll respond when I get home 
Topic's author
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
I would say interpretations are different. If you consider the interpretations of the prime morals, morals themselves than yes you could say they differ. I wouldn't say a subjective level of morality existing would erase the fact that objective morality exists though. 
Topic's author
#8
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Casey_Risk
Gotcha
#9
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@WyIted
This might seem like a semantic disagreement but I would replace the term "prime morals" with "prime values". Values are what determine morality. If you value this, then you should or should not do that. It is true that most people value human life and as a consequence, believe that it is wrong to murder. Based on your definition of objective, you could say that objective morality exists because most people share the same prime values.
Topic's author
#10
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
Values are morals the way I understand it. If you value not raping people, that would be a moral position, would it not?

I was taking it from the position of what you feel is right or wrong, which would come from that internal moral precept of "do not kill without a good reason". 

I guess I will have to think about how to separate morals and values. My assumption is that morals are about right and wrong, while value may be something like "I value human life", but morals would be knowing it is wrong to kill without good cause. So values is basically what decides my actions, while morals is how I judge your actions. Just spit balling here
Topic's author
#11
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
What is your thoughts
#12
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@WyIted
I would say that values represent what is important to you. Morals inform the choices and actions one makes while trying to attain or maintain those values. My take is that values precede morals, not the other way around. I don't think it is substantively accurate to say that because I believe murder is wrong, I therefore value human life even though it might be technically accurate to say that. More accurate is to say that because I value human life, murder should be wrong.
#13
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
We all think it is wrong to kill a child for fun.

I would suggest that we are taught how to behave.

And instinctively, avoid unessential effort and risk.


The key words in your statement are:

"Think"...Which is a subjective process.

"Wrong"...Which is a subjectively derived concept.

"Fun"...Ditto.


At the same time we are also taught that killing other living organisms can be an acceptable leisure pursuit.

But of course, not everyone agrees.


And over the millennia up to the present day, we still kill each other on a daily basis, in the name of subjective ideology.


Nope, when needs arise we can modify morality to suit.
Topic's author
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
The key words in your statement are:

"Think"...Which is a subjective process.
 Correct


"Wrong"...Which is a subjectively derived concept.
Not when it comes to the prime morals I discussed which is why nobody will find a contrary example.

"Fun"...Ditto.
Correct 

Our interpretation of those objective morals can be very subjective. We agree
Topic's author
#15
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
is that values precede morals, not the other way around. I don't think it is substantively accurate to say that because I believe murder is wrong, I therefore value human life even though it might be technically accurate to say that. More accurate is to say that because I value human life, murder should be wrong
I agree with this. As long as by values precede morals you don't mean values inform morals, because morals seem to have a more social function and values are personal
#16
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@WyIted
morals seem to have a more social function and values are personal
Completely agree.
#17
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TwoMan
@zedvictor4
Golden Rule Variations

The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them do ontoyou---- aka ‘ thank you ‘ aka ‘ blessing towards others ‘ hasa common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there were any other rules with such commonality e.g,

Is there a silver rule also? ...Seek fair and just resolution with
compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of humanity or any of its distinct tribes......

Perhaps a wooden rule? .....Forgiveness by God/Universe is instantaneous, forgiveness
by humans takes time......

Or the bone rule? An eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth. [ im not sure if
any animals other than humans practice this Biblical evangelistic concept]

Molecular rule?.....Share not with your cousin what you would not have them share with you.......

Quantum rule?.... Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all humans, does not necessitate chaos....

Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is re-postioning  of Ram Dass’s Be Here Now

A wholistc rule......What we do the one biologic species, is indicative of the care we put into consideration of greater and more wholistic set of ecology.

A cosmic integrative/interconnected  rule...... all-for-one and one-for-all....

A synergetic rule........start with the whole, and no parts can be excluded...

17 days later

#18
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
We need to start by defining what objective means. Objective just means that something is u iversally true for the most part.
This is not a reasonable definition of objective by any stretch, and is internally contradictory. To be universally true by definition means there are no exceptions, so it can't be universally true "for the most part". That's just gibberish.

To be objective means not subject to opinion or view point. In order for something to fit this definition there must be a point of comparison based on reality, not merely thought. 2+2= 4 is objective because we can put two objects on one side and two more on another and when put together there will always be 4 of them, in reality.

we all have the same morals but they are merely expressed differently. There is a shared moral sense among humanity and since humans are the only moral agents it makes morality objective
This is nothing more than an argument ad populum. That's not how objectivity is determined.

Morality is and will always be subjective because morality can only be determined in accordance with a moral standard, and the standard will always be subject to the person invoking it.
Topic's author
#19
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
This is nothing more than an argument ad populum. That's not how objectivity is determined.
It comes from observation. It's like saying all humans have a heart and lungs. 

This is not a reasonable definition of objective by any stretch, and is internally contradictory.

Just like the example I gave with the heart we do know that some humans have an artificial heart or are siamese twins and share a heart but these one in a million examples are just splitting hairs. Can you come up with an example of a society for example that would break the internal moral law


"People should not murder without a good reason"

It all seems like a different level to the same underlying intuition.
#20
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Just like the example I gave with the heart we do know that some humans have an artificial heart or are siamese twins and share a heart but these one in a million examples are just splitting hairs.
It's not splitting hairs when the claim is that it's objective. The chances of 2+2 equaling anything other than 4 is not one in a million, it's zero.
Topic's author
#21
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I wanted to point out exceptions due to sociopaths, but I think if we agreed sociopaths lack morality than the moral sense theory still holds true as all those with the moral sense have the exact same morals no matter what culture they come from. 
#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
If we eliminate those that don't contain a sense of morality then everyone left will all have a sense of morality.

Can't argue with that one.
Topic's author
#23
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
The exact same sense of morality is the argument.  Since morality is a human construct and we all have the same exact morality than it makes it objective

#24
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Morality is and will always be subjective because morality can only be determined in accordance with a moral standard, and the standard will always be subject to the person invoking it.
So is objectivity subjective since it's “subject to” facts?
#25
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
The exact same sense of morality is the argument.
It's not an argument.

First of all we don't all have the exact same sense of morality, that's why there are wars and why politics is so divisive.

Second, you claim we all share the same moral values after purposefully excluding those who don't share those moral values. That's useless.

Third, you ignore the fact that objectivity isn't determined by what people believe. 

Fourth, you ignore that there is a much simpler explanation for what we do observe with regards to the uniformity of morality: Evolution. On its base level, what unifies us on issues of morality is the desire to survive. It is that desire which is the reason we're here having this conversation in the first place. 99.9% of every species that once existed on earth is now extinct. That without question includes every species that came about without that base desire.
#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
So is objectivity subjective since it's “subject to” facts?
Objectivity isn't subject to facts, facts are subject to reality, which is what makes them objective.
Topic's author
#27
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
First of all we don't all have the exact same sense of morality, that's why there are wars and why politics is so divisive.
I already explained that we do in op and showed how we just interpret it differently. For example we all believe that we shouldn't kill without a good reason but the good reason part is what is up for debate, so we all have the same base morality, but it is expressed differently. 


Third, you ignore the fact that objectivity isn't determined by what people believe. 
Sure it is. If humans are the only species that morality applies to and every ethical philosopher seems to agree it is than we get to decide morality and we have and all agree, except for sociopaths who lack morality but they don't possess morality so it has no effect on the 98% of us that all share the exact same morality.

Fourth, you ignore that there is a much simpler explanation for what we do observe with regards to the uniformity of morality: Evolution.
Our objective morality evolving has nothing to do with whether objective morality exists or not. Whether the moral sense was given to us by God or formed by evolution, it still exists in us. 

Look into David Hume's moral sense theory. You actually have. Agrea5 base in philosophy if you limit yourself to Hume and only read his stuff. Not that I agree with everything he says but if you read and understand everything he wrote, you have a right to call yourself a philosopher. 
#28
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
I haven't responded to this thread or gotten involved with other more philosophical threads because I knew I didn't really have time for it, but I am on the verge of giving up on this site so may as well try to do something interesting.

To start off with there is a problem here:
Objective just means that something is u iversally true for the most part.
That's a contradiction.


There is no place for stupid shit like pointing out a single exception.
A rule with a single exception is not a rule, it's a generalization.


By single I mean a single person not a culture. We all share the same moral foundations. If I say that humans have 2 legs. We'll We know that some humans have one leg or 2, or even in some cases 3, but it is just a weakness of the human language and we know that nearly every human has 2 legs. So we say the statement that "humans have 2 legs" is objectively true.
"humans have two legs" is objectively true so long as you don't expand the implied meaning as "Every human being has two legs", but rather as something much more complicated like "It is the natural design dictated by DNA of the human species to have two legs, aberrations are due to developmental errors or amputation."


Now that I have dealt with the exception criticism of people pointing out that perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer has different morals than me, I think we need to handle another objection to objective morality.
Saying something is 'objective' vs 'subjective' is not a statement about how many people agree or disagree. That is a common misconception.

A subjective matter can be unanimously agreed upon, especially with small sample sizes or filtered samples. For example it is quite possible that at a given time everyone on a small pacific island likes pina colladas but that does not mean the taste of pina colladas is objectively good.

Objective subject matters can be the matters of controversy, or even lack controversy because only an extreme minority has the correct answer. Plenty of examples in the history of science.

The claim "morality is objective" is not identical to the claim "everyone agrees... except for Jeffrey Dahmer but he doesn't matter because he's a minority."

It is the claim that moral assertions can be right or wrong. It is the claim that Jeffrey Dahmer may believe X but he may also be objectively wrong in that belief.

Wrong in the same way that denying gravity or that a certain series converges is wrong. Wrong as in "this logic concludes he is wrong" not "it's unpopular and that's basically wrong."

Saying that there is a collection of morals that are VERY popular so Jeffrey Dahmer's morals can be ignored is nothing new or profound and it is distinct from claiming that Jeffrey Dahmer's morals are wrong and would be wrong even if the whole population was a bunch of Jeffrey Dahmers.


I want to talk about what I call prime morals. Humans share the same prime morals. We all think it is wrong to kill a child for fun. No society in the history of man would disagree.
Humans always seek meaning, so I would agree I can't find a society where they did it "for fun", but there are examples where they did it for some irrational reason or another. Almost always religious.


You will see some societies ask women to cover their head, others their ankles and some societies just ask that we don't expose our genitalia in public. 
... and some where hiding your genitals is weird and implies you're disfigured...


The same with murder. The prime moral would be no murdering without a good reason. Now different cultures will interpret what "good reason" means but it is none the less the prime morality at play. 
If the only 'rule' of this universal 'prime morality' is that people need reasons, and irrational reasons will do, that's not saying much.

It excludes the joker but the holocaust is fine. Or maybe the joker is justified because he's teaching an important lesson about chaos.


Basically I agree with what Double R has posted so far.
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
you ignore the fact that objectivity isn't determined by what people believe. 
Sure it is.
Then you don't know what objective means.

For example we all believe that we shouldn't kill without a good reason but the good reason part is what is up for debate, so we all have the same base morality, but it is expressed differently. 
Again, we don't all posses this base morality. You acknowledge that while simultaneously arguing that our perfect uniformity proves objective morality. That's a logical contradiction.

If morality is based on the assurance of human survival then of course it objectively follows that killing people is wrong. That's not proof that morality is objective, it's a tautology. That's no different than me saying there is no bachelor anywhere on earth right now that is married. Of course not, because that's how the word is defined.

The fallacy of pronouncing a tautology is that it sounds like you're saying something useful and meaningful when it is neither.  
Topic's author
#30
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,466
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe in the prime meridian? Most people would consider the prime meridian objectively true