Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[FedUpWithFaith]

Seraph,

You ignored the fact that I already agreed with you that your assertion that morality as absolute right and wrong is oxymoronic - at least without agreeing on a pressupoosed moral reference frame first, which is a subjective act.. It's a trivial assertion, self-evident in my view. As far as I'm concerned, that aspect is settled between us and I'm not interested in arguing it. If that's all you care about in this thread then you can throw up your hands and say you won and go home. So you really never answered my questions since you began with a qualification I already agreed with.

I stand by what you quoted from me in your last paragraph and you haven't successfully countered it with your arguments yet. I never asserted that the Golden Rule is an absolute, without a subjective context as you seem to imply. Morality is a social and personal phenomenon. They can't be divorced from each other. The personal part is subjective but it does have objective influences due to its evolved social function, some of which is probably hard-wired into our brains.

Let me ask you by the same token, is the stock market a completely subjective system? The internet? Government? Our system of roads? All are based on human judgment. You don't see anything objective about them? A related matter you ignored in my post is the fact that not all human judgment is completely or equally subjective in and of itself. To the extent that it is based on purely logical reasoning it is objective. All humans thinking logically will judge that an elephant is bigger than a mouse. On the other hand, not all humans will agree that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. Both types of conclusions are human judgments but they aren't both equally objective or subjective. You seem to be confusing judgment with opinion. All opinions are are form of judgment but not all judgments are opinions. Opinions tend to be subjective, as in my taste example. But many types of opinions don't have to be completely subjective either if they subsume logic as well as personal qualia preferences or disposition.

You also really side-stepped the deeper questions I was raising concerning alien sentience coming to our planet and "understanding" our morality vis a vis their own. All you've really tackled is that aliens could describe our moral behaviors without any of there own subjective resonance. So what? We can describe social ant and bee behavior too. Do they exhibit morality? No, and not because they aren't human but because they lack the sentience to make choices, which is necessary for human (and presumably alien) judgment and, arguably, free will.

That brings me to one final paradox concerning you consistent with the OPs original post concerning morality and free will. I know from previous debates with you Seraph that you are a hard determinist and don't believe in free will at all. As you know, I'm not far off since what i believe exists as free will is not what many people would agree is free will. Nevertheless, to some degree, at its essence, having free will means the freedom to make choices. The entire lynchpin of your arguments lies on "human judgment" which is no more than our supposed ability to make choices (implicit is the freedom that we could have chosen otherwise). If there are no real choices isn't "human judgment" simply an illusion? If so, then isn't morality simply an illusion? What really makes us different from the ants?

I don't think you will be able to reconcile your views here without explicitiy or implicitly agreeing on some objective basis and processes for morality, whether it is illusion or not.

[Drewish]

I am of the opinion that there is, but I tend to lead to... "bad conversational outcomes" on this topic.

Ah, yes. You did contribute early on. At one stage you said: "There is an objective moral standard for beings of sentience, and it is their achievement and survival." That standard is not about - to reiterate Xamonas Chegwé's question in the opening post - an absolute right and wrong. It is a value judgement made by humans, not something that is self-evidently true. Absolute moral standards - the thing Xamonas Chegwé was asking about - are supposed to be entirely independent of human judgement, and that is an oxymoronic proposition that nobody has advocated yet without redefining what 'objective' means in relation to the way it was used in the opening post.

That depends on whether one defines morality as a code of values or a code of conduct. If one states that it's a code of values, then it of course must be subjective, but if it is a code of conduct for achieving one's values, then it is only relative to the values of an individual but the nature and structure of that code of conduct is in itself arguably pre0defined.

[Animavore]

If morality is subject to nature the way evolution is (given that our morals supposedly evolved) then I don't see any reason why their can't be an objective theory of morality.
What that could be though admittedly I haven't the foggiest.

[floppit]

Sorry if someone else has posted about this - I can't catch up read 11 pages!

I prefer the language of ethics to morality because ethics has it's roots in discussion, learning and agreement where as morality's roots seem to me set in dictate and a priori judgement, also ethics deals more with specific behaviour rather than whole people, it leaves open important questions like 'for who?' and 'when?'.

While objectivity in ethics may be hard to achieve I don't believe it is impossible, where as with morality I think it is likely impossible.

[Coito ergo sum]

This should be a good discussion....

I say, no, there is no such thing as "objective" morality. Morality is a construct of the mind, and a value judgment placed upon words or actions or other things that designate them as bad or wrong, or good or right. A rock can be deemed moral or immoral, by individual decision. Nothing is "objectively" immoral - "Nothing is either good or bad, but that thinking makes it so." - Hamlet.

That's not to say there is no morality. There is subjective morality. And, what is moral in a given culture is, basically, the consensus of opinion.

[Animavore]

We already had this one

[Rum]

We have. You might be surprised to know that for once I agree with you on this one!

[Tigger]

We already had this one

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 78&start=0

[Coito ergo sum]

We already had this one

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 78&start=0

Dammit...maybe the mods will merge it. Oh, well...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Merged.

[jamest]

Morality would necessarily have to be a subjective concept, unless there was an underlying unity connecting everything 'as one'. Then, it would be possible for there to be an objective/singular morality, I think.

[Tigger]

Merged.

See: you enjoyed that really. I was going to do it, but I have a bone in my leg.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Merged.

See: you enjoyed that really. I was going to do it, but I have a bone in my leg.

The daft thing is, it probably took you more effort to find the thread, copy the link and paste it in a post than it would have done to merge it!

[Bruce Burleson]

Objective morality exists, whether or not there is a God. "Objective" simply means that the morality has reference to some external standard - that it is not simply made up in your own head (which would be subjective morality). Kant provides a philosophical objective morality with his categorical imperative, which is similar to the Golden Rule. A Golden Rule based morality can be founded on reason - as Kant basically did - or on religious authority - as Jesus basically did. Either way, it is objective, as it relates to an external principle.

Objective morality is to be distinguished from universal morality. Without God, it is questionable whether any universal morality can exist, because there is no unifying force to require anyone to accept any particular moral principle. One may say "the Golden Rule is the most rational basis for morality," while another may say that it is utilitarianism or some other principle. Another may reject it altogether and go with "if it feels good, do it." Apart from a final arbiter such as God, it is difficult to see how there could ever be a universal morality. Except in North Korea, of course.

[jamest]

Objective morality is to be distinguished from universal morality.

Isn't that a bit like saying that an objective science is to be distinguished from a universal science?

I don't see how anything can be objective if it doesn't apply, universally.