Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Trolldor]

Explain how morality is objective. In any way.

[Sisifo]

Well, I'm just going to say that it seems to me that in the thread ethics are being taken as morality.

Ethics are the culturaly designed expression of the already existing morality. As such they are subjective and variable. But behind the ethics, a core of morality exists that I reason as being undistinguishable of empathy, which is biologogical, and not philosophical or abstract.

Ethics, as complement of morality, adds circumstances, embellish the morality with "when" "how" "who"... and those circumstances change from time to time and from culture to culture. But it is ethics, what it's changing. Not morality.

Morality says that murdering is wrong.
Ethics say that in some circumstances, it is justified... They don't make right what it's wrong: they just justify, and redeem the guilt. Actually, ethics can be a way to manipulate morality though reason. Religions and upper levels of Status Quo have used it as such.

But morality it is a hardwired part of the species behaviour. Sometimes it's an evolutionary result, like maternal instinct in some species, or a regional adaptation and treat of a species. But for me, to question morality is similar to question the existence of species behaviour. In humans, the species behaviour is called morality. And the fact that it can be overcome like most of our animal instincts, doesn't make it disappear. Actually it proves its existence: the fact that indoctrination from religion and culture is necessary to make a mother abandon or harm her offspring, or to kill another human, or harm oneself... well, the fact that you need to reprogram someone to do those things, proves that there is an original program.

[FBM]

Well, I'm just going to say that it seems to me that in the thread ethics are being taken as morality.

...

Yes! Overwhelmingly, yes! It's hard to find anyone who is willing/able to distinguish between ethics and morality!!!

[Trolldor]

Well, I'm just going to say that it seems to me that in the thread ethics are being taken as morality.

Ethics are the culturaly designed expression of the already existing morality. As such they are subjective and variable. But behind the ethics, a core of morality exists that I reason as being undistinguishable of empathy, which is biologogical, and not philosophical or abstract.

Ethics, as complement of morality, adds circumstances, embellish the morality with "when" "how" "who"... and those circumstances change from time to time and from culture to culture. But it is ethics, what it's changing. Not morality.

Morality says that murdering is wrong.
Ethics say that in some circumstances, it is justified... They don't make right what it's wrong: they just justify, and redeem the guilt. Actually, ethics can be a way to manipulate morality though reason. Religions and upper levels of Status Quo have used it as such.

But morality it is a hardwired part of the species behaviour. Sometimes it's an evolutionary result, like maternal instinct in some species, or a regional adaptation and treat of a species. But for me, to question morality is similar to question the existence of species behaviour. In humans, the species behaviour is called morality. And the fact that it can be overcome like most of our animal instincts, doesn't make it disappear. Actually it proves its existence: the fact that indoctrination from religion and culture is necessary to make a mother abandon or harm her offspring, or to kill another human, or harm oneself... well, the fact that you need to reprogram someone to do those things, proves that there is an original program.

You don't need to reprogram them at all. You just have to teach them differently. Our society as a whole builds in through the education system, through parents, through television programs and books a distinct type of morality. We are programmed to have 'a' kind of morality, but not any specific subset of morality.

[Drewish]

Explain how morality is objective. In any way.

In order for something to be Objective there must be some criteria or standard by which to judge it. If one is to say that some item is taller than another, then we consider that to be an objective standard. If a similar claim is made stating that a certain food is tastier than another, then we would consider that to be subjective, because the standards by which it is judged do not exist as a matter of real characteristics, but are instead based upon the perceptions of the individual(s) judging them.

Now one can claim that measuring height is innately subjective as well, saying that if people look from various angles they might have different interpretations of the scenario, but this is the argument of the postmodernist. We have science with double-blinded studies and rigorous scrutinizing precisely because we realize the limitations of our own perspective but will not allow those limitations to deter us from realizing and understanding the nature of the world around us. And it is through the powers of mathematics and science that we obtain the understanding that allows us to attain and achieve great things.

So what then are the standards for morality you might ask? Well is it not obvious that an individual who knows the nature of the world around him or herself is better equipped than one who lives blindly by the ancient abstractions of religious dogma or relies purely on base instinct? Rational thought and scientific knowledge are powerful entities that enable human beings to thrive where they would otherwise perish. There is an objective moral standard for beings of sentience, and it is their achievement and survival. Who would say that the beggar who lives by means of other people's pity is more moral than the inventor who lives by creating things of value that they will gladly trade their own goods and objects of value for?

Here, it has been said better by others in the past, so I'll link to this video again:

[Sisifo]

[

You don't need to reprogram them at all. You just have to teach them differently. Our society as a whole builds in through the education system, through parents, through television programs and books a distinct type of morality. We are programmed to have 'a' kind of morality, but not any specific subset of morality.

Our society builds ethics. Our species has a behaviour called morality.

[Drewish]

Well, I'm just going to say that it seems to me that in the thread ethics are being taken as morality.

...

Yes! Overwhelmingly, yes! It's hard to find anyone who is willing/able to distinguish between ethics and morality!!!

There is no difference at all between the two. That is nothing more than a lie embraced by people who want to live by one set of standards while desiring to hold others to another. Show me someone who'd standard of ethics are not directly derived from their morality and I'll show you a hypocrite.

[FBM]

Well, I'm just going to say that it seems to me that in the thread ethics are being taken as morality.

...

Yes! Overwhelmingly, yes! It's hard to find anyone who is willing/able to distinguish between ethics and morality!!!

There is no difference at all between the two. That is nothing more than a lie embraced by people who want to live by one set of standards while desiring to hold others to another. Show me someone who'd standard of ethics are not directly derived from their morality and I'll show you a hypocrite.

When one thing is "derived from" (using your own words) another, there is a difference between the two. Otherwise, the act of derivation wouldn't be perceived.

[Trolldor]

[

You don't need to reprogram them at all. You just have to teach them differently. Our society as a whole builds in through the education system, through parents, through television programs and books a distinct type of morality. We are programmed to have 'a' kind of morality, but not any specific subset of morality.

Our society builds ethics. Our species has a behaviour called morality.

You said 'morality says murder is wrong' but ethics determines where it's justified. That's wrong. The human 'morality' tells you murder is okay if food is scarce to the point of starvation. That's not 'ethics'.

Well is it not obvious that an individual who knows the nature of the world around him or herself is better equipped than one who lives blindly by the ancient abstractions of religious dogma or relies purely on base instinct?

Better equipped? To meet a subjective standard, yes. Not an objective one. A mass murderer and a charity worker are of equal value to the universe. Humanity's objective value is equal to the brightest star and the deepest void. It is non-existant. To apply any objective value to anything we do is nothing but wishful thinking.
Rational thought is a subjective standard as well. Human logic is subjective.

[Drewish]

Well, I'm just going to say that it seems to me that in the thread ethics are being taken as morality.

...

Yes! Overwhelmingly, yes! It's hard to find anyone who is willing/able to distinguish between ethics and morality!!!

There is no difference at all between the two. That is nothing more than a lie embraced by people who want to live by one set of standards while desiring to hold others to another. Show me someone who'd standard of ethics are not directly derived from their morality and I'll show you a hypocrite.

When one thing is "derived from" (using your own words) another, there is a difference between the two. Otherwise, the act of derivation wouldn't be perceived.

Wordplay nonsense. By that logic morality and ethics are different simply because you have two different words for them. One can say that physics and chemistry are different things, but to claim that chemistry could exist independently of physics is absurd, and it is obviously merely an extension of physics.

[FBM]

Wordplay nonsense.

Name-calling, a common logical fallacy.

By that logic morality and ethics are different simply because you have two different words for them. One can say that physics and chemistry are different things, but to claim that chemistry could exist independently of physics is absurd, and it is obviously merely an extension of physics.

Invalid analogy. Equating things that are more different than alike. Another logical fallacy.

[Drewish]

Wordplay nonsense.

Name-calling, a common logical fallacy.

I called his argument a name and that's a fallacy? I believe were looking for term ad hominem, though it doesn't apply here as I was speaking of his argument and not the person. And I hold that is was mere wordplay.

By that logic morality and ethics are different simply because you have two different words for them. One can say that physics and chemistry are different things, but to claim that chemistry could exist independently of physics is absurd, and it is obviously merely an extension of physics.

Invalid analogy. Equating things that are more different than alike. Another logical fallacy.

I rather think that's a very good analogy to describing the dependency of ethics on morality. You can throw around the term logical fallacy all day, and it doesn't mean anything if it's not true.

[Rum]

It's relatively easy to see the substantial difference to the corporeal and the metaphysical. Morality is dependant on interpretation, nuances, the birth and death of stars has nothing to do with interpretation. It either happens or it doesn't. There is no 'self-defence' in the creation of black holes, there's no 'provocation' in asteroids. Objective morality would require the interpretation of subjective experiences, and therefore can only be applied by a conscious and objective arbiter - a being with the ability to interpret the subjective by comparison to an objective criteria.

I beg to differ. If one looks at an ordinary dining room chair for example, it is a chair because as human beings we define it as such. In 'reality' it is a bunch of wood glued together. Or perhaps it is just pieces of tree brought together in a pattern. Or perhaps it is the cells or molecules which make up the 'chair' temporarily arranged in a certain way. I would argue that it is only human consciousness and it 'projection' onto objects with gives them any sort of definition.

I would agree that this subjective material is of a different order to 'morality' and other abstract psychological constructions, but I would also argue that is is only marginally more substantial. The consequences of not adhering to certain patterns of morality can also be rather more serious for you than sitting on the floor instead of a chair!

A rock is a rock independant of us. How we translate the information is irrelevant, no matter how we label the concept. How we comprehend the universe means nothing absolutely nothing in relation to its existence. The universe is objective and always gives off the same 'information'. Our view may be 'subjective' insofar as how we translate the information, but that information will be there whether we are or not. Morality is different, morality only exists because we created it, and morality only exists because of the societies we've manufactured. Morality changes from society to society, from context to context. A murder is not a murder when it's in self-defence, theft is immoral to the baker but not to the hungry man. A rock is always a rock whether we're blind or deaf or dumb, whether you're a catepillar or a bat or another rock.

Assertion is not discussion mate. Comes over as aggressive I am afraid.

To return to discussion - a rock is not a rock independent of our view to my way of thinking. Imagine for example a loose collection of material in zero gravity with only 30% the density of rock as we know it on earth. Is that a rock? When does it become one? When it has 50% the density? 90%? It is human definition and consciousness that brings form to the thing. One can look at organic structures in a similar way. We see a whole 'person' (or dog, cat - or whatever). We define using common sense that creature with its label. However another possibly equally valid interpretation of the creature is that is is a colony of cells organised via evolution /genes and DNA etc to function in the way it does. Or a set of quantum fluctuations...etc. The absence of consciousness and observation makes objects in my view something 'other' than what common sense would suggest they are.

I would agree however that morality is a different class of thing and has no external manifestation as such.

[Trolldor]

It is human definition and consciousness that brings form to the thing.

Wrong. Blind assertion comes across as aggression.

Also, I've already answered your points. And I posed a question. Point to my anywhere, any evidence which says human consciousness is the necessary part of the construction or existence of anything in the universe.

[Drewish]

To return to discussion - a rock is not a rock independent of our view to my way of thinking. Imagine for example a loose collection of material in zero gravity with only 30% the density of rock as we know it on earth. Is that a rock? When does it become one? When it has 50% the density? 90%? It is human definition and consciousness that brings form to the thing.

I have to agree with born-again-atheist on this point. The error there is in the human taxonomy and labeling of language, not in the 'rock' itself. For example, there's nothing particularly baffling about the duckbill platypus under the cladistic model of life (which categorizes species based on ancestry.) It's only because of the artificial notion of 'mammal' or 'bird' that people think that there is something odd about the animal. You are suggesting that words are not a reflection of reality, but instead it is the other way around. Well the moment prayer or any other form of wishful thinking proves to be able to manipulate the universe outside of human minds, I'll concede defeat, but that's never going to happen because that tree does make a noise regardless of whether I'm there to hear it or not, and you can't deny that without denying the very existence of physics.