Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Exactly. If you read the thread in its entirety, you will see that most of it boils down to a semantic debate between:

Objective = Universally true, independent of subjective opinion.

and

Objective = A group-subjective opinion.

I tend towards the former, which makes it simple for me to answer in the negative - there is no objective morality if that is your definition of 'objective'. Others differ in their definition and some of those, understandably, vote yes.

I think the poll needs a revised set of options: -

• Universally true morality exists which applies to all mankind.
• No universal morality exists but there are locally agreed moralities based upon shared, cultural values, which supersede personal, subjective morality
• All morality is completely subjective and is a matter of individual conscience.

[AshtonBlack]

For me, morality is the expression of a mixture of evolved and learned behaviours to aid our social groups.
So I see some as innate (killing, stealing, lying) and some as learned from the group (Nakedness, inappropriate sexual behaviour, slavery/rape etc.)
But since all these things have been justified as "moral" at one time or another by different social groups, then it shows that there is no objective morality, but only subjective group social opinion. The best example of this is slavery and it's, now, pretty much universal rejection.

[macdoc]

objective morality?

yes, it exists as an oxymoron

[Bruce Burleson]

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.

Then we have different understandings of "objective," at least with respect to the issue of morality. Science and morality are in different spheres. Either the earth revolves around the sun or it doesn't. The same cannot be said of whether a woman is morally justified in having an abortion. If she makes her decision by referring to external principles, such as reason or religious authority, then she has employed objective morality.

[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.

Then we have different understandings of "objective," at least with respect to the issue of morality. Science and morality are in different spheres. Either the earth revolves around the sun or it doesn't. The same cannot be said of whether a woman is morally justified in having an abortion. If she makes her decision by referring to external principles, such as reason or religious authority, then she has employed objective morality.

The point I made was that reason could point to a universal morality IF there was the same sort of singularness underlying 'life' as with the order inherent within the universe. Yes, either the earth revolves around the sun, or it doesn't... but one might be able to say that it is objectively right or wrong to become pregnant, or morally right or wrong to have an abortion, upon the basis of viewing 'life' as One.

Objective morality must be universal, if it can occur. And I think that there is a case for objective morality, dependent upon the unity of everything. Therefore, the question reduces to: can there be a unity of everything?

As always, the deeper questions revolve around metaphysics.

[macdoc]

You are trying to mix physics and metaphysics
and mores arise from a community despite wishful thinking of some
- total nonsense of a topic

[AshtonBlack]

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.

Then we have different understandings of "objective," at least with respect to the issue of morality. Science and morality are in different spheres. Either the earth revolves around the sun or it doesn't. The same cannot be said of whether a woman is morally justified in having an abortion. If she makes her decision by referring to external principles, such as reason or religious authority, then she has employed objective morality.

Well she uses "reason" whether religious or not, but if her reasoning is not based on objective facts, then no matter what she THINKS she's doing it's subjective not objective.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Then we have different understandings of "objective," at least with respect to the issue of morality. Science and morality are in different spheres. Either the earth revolves around the sun or it doesn't. The same cannot be said of whether a woman is morally justified in having an abortion. If she makes her decision by referring to external principles, such as reason or religious authority, then she has employed objective morality.

The point I made was that reason could point to a universal morality IF there was the same sort of singularness underlying 'life' as with the order inherent within the universe. Yes, either the earth revolves around the sun, or it doesn't... but one might be able to say that it is objectively right or wrong to become pregnant, or morally right or wrong to have an abortion, upon the basis of viewing 'life' as One.

Objective morality must be universal, if it can occur. And I think that there is a case for objective morality, dependent upon the unity of everything. Therefore, the question reduces to: can there be a unity of everything?

As always, the deeper questions revolve around metaphysics.

Uh-oh! Metaphysix has been mentioned! By Chegwé's Law, this thread is officially over!

[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.

Exactly. If you read the thread in its entirety, you will see that most of it boils down to a semantic debate between:

Objective = Universally true, independent of subjective opinion.

and

Objective = A group-subjective opinion.

Okay... but a group-subjective opinion is still a subjective opinion. I don't see why any debate is needed to clarify this aspect of the discussion. Was, for instance, the group-subjective opinion about the world being flat, an objective opinion? No, obviously. So, true objectivity must be synonymous with universality or absolute singularness of opinion: absolute surety.

Objective morality then, must involve singularness of intent, by logical default.

Can it exist? Yes, clearly, it can - as long as everyone sees the true value of do unto others as you would have them do unto you... and suchlike.

[AshtonBlack]

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.

Then we have different understandings of "objective," at least with respect to the issue of morality. Science and morality are in different spheres. Either the earth revolves around the sun or it doesn't. The same cannot be said of whether a woman is morally justified in having an abortion. If she makes her decision by referring to external principles, such as reason or religious authority, then she has employed objective morality.

The point I made was that reason could point to a universal morality IF there was the same sort of singularness underlying 'life' as with the order inherent within the universe. Yes, either the earth revolves around the sun, or it doesn't... but one might be able to say that it is objectively right or wrong to become pregnant, or morally right or wrong to have an abortion, upon the basis of viewing 'life' as One.

Objective morality must be universal, if it can occur. And I think that there is a case for objective morality, dependent upon the unity of everything. Therefore, the question reduces to: can there be a unity of everything?

As always, the deeper questions revolve around metaphysics.

Uh-oh! Metaphysix has been mentioned! By Chegwé's Law, this thread is officially over!

Great. I start to chip in and then someone goes and does that......
Why for the love of god(s) WHY????

[jamest]

Uh-oh! Metaphysix has been mentioned! By Chegwé's Law, this thread is officially over!

By logical default then, Chegwé's Law must be subjective/transparent and of selfish value.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Exactly. If you read the thread in its entirety, you will see that most of it boils down to a semantic debate between:

Objective = Universally true, independent of subjective opinion.

and

Objective = A group-subjective opinion.

Okay... but a group-subjective opinion is still a subjective opinion. I don't see why any debate is needed to clarify this aspect of the discussion. Was, for instance, the group-subjective opinion about the world being flat, an objective opinion? No, obviously. So, true objectivity must be synonymous with universality or absolute singularness of opinion: absolute surety.

Objective morality then, must involve singularness of intent, by logical default.

Can it exist? Yes, clearly, it can - as long as everyone sees the true value of do unto others as you would have them do unto you... and suchlike.

Don't argue with me. I share your definition of objective. But there are 10 pages of argument about it, that's all I'm saying...

[jamest]

You are trying to mix physics and metaphysics
and mores arise from a community despite wishful thinking of some
- total nonsense of a topic

wtf has 'physics' got to do with morality?

[jamest]

Don't argue with me. I share your definition of objective. But there are 10 pages of argument about it, that's all I'm saying...

It's immoral not to wind-up a mod to the extent that you can get away with it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You are trying to mix physics and metaphysics
and mores arise from a community despite wishful thinking of some
- total nonsense of a topic

wtf has 'physics' got to do with morality?

For that matter, what has metaphysics to do with it? Ethics and metaphysics are separate branches of philosophy, are they not?