Morality is Objective.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 133
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Morality is one of the most important topics that humanity has ever wrestled with. It is central to how we live our lives, how we treat one another, and how we structure our societies and ideology's. Despite its importance, morality remains an issue, with some arguing that it is entirely subjective while others hold that it is objective. I will argue that morality is objective. 

First and foremost, we must define what we mean by morality.

Because of the lack of others, I will define morality as the set of principles that lead/govern human behavior and guide us in our interactions with others. Hopefully, everyone can agree on this definition. 

These principles can be grounded in religion, philosophy, or culture, but they all share the same common goal:
To help us live together in harmony and pursue our goals in a way that benefits us all.

Now, some people argue that morality is entirely subjective, that it is just a matter of personal preference or cultural norms. They argue that what is right or wrong is determined solely by what an individual or a society makes it to be. However, this view is completely false. 
If morality were subjective, then we would have no way of resolving moral arguments. We could not say that anything is truly right or wrong, good or evil. We would have no basis for judging the actions of others or making moral decisions ourselves. We already as humans have a basis in what we see as good or bad. No one disputes this. 

On the other hand, if morality is objective, then we can make meaningful moral judgments. We can say that certain actions are truly right or wrong, good or evil, regardless of what individuals or societies might think. This is the definition of morality in a basic concept. 
There actually is evidence to suggest that morality is objective. Studies have shown that people across cultures share certain moral intuitions, such as the belief that it is wrong to harm innocent people or that fairness and reciprocity are important values.

Moreover, if we look at the history of moral philosophy, we can see that there are certain moral principles that have been held as objective truths across cultures and time periods. For example, the principle of non-maleficence, which holds that we should not harm others, has been a central tenet of moral philosophy since the time of the ancient Greeks.

Morality is indeed objective. It is not a matter of personal preference or cultural norms but is grounded in universal moral principles that are independent of individual or societal beliefs.
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I don't think that morality is objective.
I will define morality as the set of principles that lead/govern human behavior and guide us in our interactions with others.
I think your definition should be revised:
Morality is the set of principles that guide people in their interactions with others within a society or culture.
These principles can be grounded in religion, philosophy, or culture, but they all share the same common goal:
To help us live together in harmony and pursue our goals in a way that benefits us all.
I agree.
There actually is evidence to suggest that morality is objective. Studies have shown that people across cultures share certain moral intuitions, such as the belief that it is wrong to harm innocent people or that fairness and reciprocity are important values.
Is it not possible, that most societies share certain moral intuitions because they have found that they are beneficial? Societies work better when not killing, not stealing, and not raping is customary or the law. You don't need an authority to figure this out -- it's obvious if you have lived in the world for awhile.
If morality were subjective, then we would have no way of resolving moral arguments.
Why not? Local custom or law can be the basis for resolving moral arguments. They work just fine.

Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Interpersonal and objective are two things. Even if it knowingly applies to every single person, we don't know if other societies exist or not.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The very nature of internal data processing, means that all output is the result of a subjective process.

Especially an abstract concept such as morality.
grimmhorizons
grimmhorizons's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4
0
0
3
grimmhorizons's avatar
grimmhorizons
0
0
3
Morality is not subjective. It can be compared to your political coordinates, it's just a set of your values and beliefs.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,640
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Every society has objective moral laws for survival that they must follow to increase their chances of survival. The less they follow the objective moral laws, fewer is their society in number.

One must note that objective moral laws for survival of an individual are different from objective moral laws for survival of society as a whole and its increase in number. Both laws exist, and cannot be changed in any way by human opinion.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Best.Korea
Oh, so you are essentially disregarding the possibility of non-human civilization by equating interpersonal with objective. In your domain, you are not wrong; in actuality of everything, your claim says nothing.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
Interpersonal and objective are two things. Even if it knowingly applies to every single person, we don't know if other societies exist or not.
But with what we know, morality is objective.

Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But with what we know, morality is objective.
If we regard anything that is sure and disregard everything that is unsure. Sadly, we can't do that.

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@b9_ntt
Is it not possible, that most societies share certain moral intuitions because they have found that they are beneficial?
These moral intuitions were shared before these civilizations became prominent or powerful enough to spread influence. And this happens many times throughout different cultures and societies who haven't had contact with each other for generations. 

Societies work better when not killing, not stealing, and not raping is customary or the law. 
The fact that we work better with those principles in place, prove that a moral law is objective and cannot be changed to one's opinions, and beliefs on what their personal moral compass guides them to do. 

Why not? Local custom or law can be the basis for resolving moral arguments. They work just fine.
The fact that local customs or laws can be used to resolve moral arguments does not necessarily mean that morality is subjective. Local customs and laws can be influenced by objective moral principles, such as the protection of human rights, justice, and fairness. Usually (not always) laws are created in order to enforce moral principles that are considered to be universal, such as the prohibition of murder, theft, and other forms of harm to others.

The fact that local customs or laws may work to resolve moral arguments in a society or culture does not mean that they are morally right.
History proves and shows us that societies that have had customs or laws that were morally wrong, such as slavery.



b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The fact that local customs or laws may work to resolve moral arguments in a society or culture does not mean that they are morally right.
Aren't you assuming here that there is an objective morality?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,640
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Oh, so you are essentially disregarding the possibility of non-human civilization by equating interpersonal with objective. In your domain, you are not wrong;
Non-human civilizations? I thought we were talking about objective laws for humans? However, the non-human civilizations also have their own objective laws of morality.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@grimmhorizons
It's just a set of your values and beliefs

Subjective then.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Even if morality was objective, the human species is incapable of adhering to 100 % agreed upon objective  morals. Kind of a moot argument in my opinion. Your behavior is rewarded accordingly whether you want to believe it or not.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@b9_ntt
Aren't you assuming here that there is an objective morality?
I mean I am arguing that morality is objective. 

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
Societies work better when not killing, not stealing, and not raping is customary or the law.
Who said societies have to “work” anyway? What authority do you have to make that assertion?
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Local customs and laws can be influenced by objective moral principles
Yes, if there are any.
Going back to the beginning,
If morality were subjective, then we would have no way of resolving moral arguments. We could not say that anything is truly right or wrong, good or evil. We would have no basis for judging the actions of others or making moral decisions ourselves.  [my emphasis]
Where do you get the "truly"?
If morality were subjective, then that would be that. Their morality would be true for any society that has customs and laws. Those laws differ from time to time and place to place.
In ancient Greece, people thought it was okay to expose deformed babies to the elements. We now think that was wrong.
In the USA today, most people think it's okay to kill a human embryo. Many in this country think it is wrong. Opinion has gone back and forth on this issue. Maybe we will hash it out someday, then the result will be our morality.
Some societies believe it is wrong to smoke marijuana and severely punish people who do it. Where is your objective morality on this issue?


b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Who said societies have to “work” anyway? What authority do you have to make that assertion?
They don't "have to" and in fact some don't. I assume that most people prefer others to be law abiding, that laws to be applied equally, that they are free to go about their business without too much interference, and so on.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@b9_ntt
Where do you get the "truly"?
If morality were subjective, then that would be that. Their morality would be true for any society that has customs and laws. Those laws differ from time to time and place to place.
In ancient Greece, people thought it was okay to expose deformed babies to the elements. We now think that was wrong.
In the USA today, most people think it's okay to kill a human embryo. Many in this country think it is wrong. Opinion has gone back and forth on this issue. Maybe we will hash it out someday, then the result will be our morality.
Some societies believe it is wrong to smoke marijuana and severely punish people who do it. Where is your objective morality on this issue?
What does subjective mean? 
Subjective: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

If morality were to be based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, then that means that no one could tell what was truly right or truly wrong, giving the world a biased moral Lense. 

Just because people have different opinions about what is moral does not mean that there is no objective morality. The very fact that people can have discussions and debates about what is right and wrong indicates that they are appealing to some standard of morality.









b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The very fact that people can have discussions and debates about what is right and wrong indicates that they are appealing to some standard of morality.
That's true. My standard is the laws of the USA.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,640
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@b9_ntt
My standard is the laws of Afghanistan.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
I assume that most people prefer others to be law abiding, that laws to be applied equally, that they are free to go about their business without too much interference, and so on. 
Do you prefer that?
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Yes, I do. Don't you?
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
Yes, I do. Don't you?
Yes but I’m curious to know your reasons why?
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
I think it leads to a more productive and satisfying life (and I value those two things).
It makes my life more predictable, and thus easier to go about my business.
It fits my personality of live and let live.


Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
It fits my personality of live and let live.
How is that when you have a preference for how others live? Abiding by the law that is?
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Then I don't have to constantly worry that someone might kill or rob me for starters.
I know that law abidance is breaking down in my country (USA) and that makes me more fearful to go places outside my home.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@b9_ntt
Then I don't have to constantly worry that someone might kill or rob me for starters.
Why is that exactly a worry for you though? Especially under your belief that none of those things last forever anyway.
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Because I want to live. If lawlessness pervades society, I would spend more of my energy avoiding bad guys than I would otherwise.