Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[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?

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

If they are, they shouldn't be, for surely the significance of any morality must hinge upon the metaphysic associated with it.

[Feck]

NO .

[Pappa]

NO .

Shall I lock the thread?

[Feck]

NO .

Shall I lock the thread?

Yes I have spoken .

[jamest]

Of course, the repercussions for mods here are not good, unless their decisions are universally accepted.

[macdoc]

jamest » Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:18 pm

macdoc wrote:
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?

why indeed.....try parsing your language use sometime

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

What is moral, however, is always a matter of subjective opinion.

I may think killing another human being in self defense is moral. Amish don't.

I may think killing another human being as punishment for a crime is moral. Amish and other people don't.

I may think polygamy is moral. Others don't.

I may think sex outside of wedlock is moral. Others don't.

I may think homosexual sex is moral. Others don't.

No matter what philosophical tool or structure you try to use, there is no "objective" morality because morality is, no matter how hard we try otherwise, something we each make up in our own head. We may make moral decisions purely on a case-by-case basis and just decide what is moral based on what feels moral. Or, we may adopt a system of morality and try to follow that system. However, that doesn't make that system "objective." It makes that system "someone else's system that we have chosen to try to follow." We still have to make our own determinations as to what is right and wrong in given circumstances, and that is ALWAYS a matter of subjective opinion.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

No no.

She has employed a moral system or structure external to herself. However, she has not employed a morality which is applicable to each individual regardless of their personal feelings or subjective opinion.

The way you have phrased it, we can have objective morality and have a person choose polar opposite courses of action and still be "objectively moral." The woman in your example, for instance, could take her morality from Catholicism, which says abortion is immoral, and hence if she has an abortion she is being immoral - and in your view, "objectively" immoral because it is from an external source. However, if she gets her morality from a different source - perhaps she is a Taoist or Confusionist - and based on that belief system does not view it as immoral, she could have the abortion and still be behaving objectively moral. She got her morality from an external source.

So, if there is objective morality, but the morality of abortion depends on which external opinion on the subject she follows then where is the objectivity?

She's just substituting someone else's opinion for her own. That doesn't make it "objectively" moral or immoral. It means that she's just copying someone else's subjective opinion.

[the PC apeman]

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?

If they are, they shouldn't be, for surely the significance of any morality must hinge upon the metaphysic associated with it.

What ought ethics be?

[Coito ergo sum]

What are the best arguments in favor of their existing an objective morality?

[Hermit]

What are the best arguments in favor of their existing an objective morality?

Moral values are absolute because they are written down in holy books, and the holy books are the words of gods.

Sorry, Sam Harris, that's as good as it gets.

[charlou]

What are the best arguments in favor of their existing an objective morality?

Moral values are absolute because they are written down in holy books, and the holy books are the words of gods.

Sorry, Sam Harris, that's as good as it gets.

Is Sam Harris arguing that science can prove absolute moral values? My understanding is he believes we can evaluate moral values, scientifically, by measuring their effect on our well-being ... ? Sounds more like ethics to me, but ...

I may have to have a read of his new book ...

[Hermit]

What are the best arguments in favor of their existing an objective morality?

Moral values are absolute because they are written down in holy books, and the holy books are the words of gods.

Sorry, Sam Harris, that's as good as it gets.

Is Sam Harris arguing that science can prove absolute moral values?

Yes, he does in his TED talk, in his expansion of what he said there, and I presume he is about to do the same in his forthcoming book. In his TED (transcript here talk he was quite explicit:

• most people -- I think most people probably here -- think that science will never answer the most important questions in human life: questions like, "What is worth living for?" "What is worth dying for?" "What constitutes a good life?"
  
  So, I'm going to argue that this is an illusion

I have not come across a single piece of argument, however, which would lead to the conclusion "that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing wellbeing" is a moral value that can be derived from perusing scientific facts, and therefore objective.

[jamest]

It seems to me that objective morality - once theism is eradicated from our concerns - can only be evaluated in utilitarian terms. Is this more-or-less what Harris is advocating?

[Hermit]

It seems to me that objective morality - once theism is eradicated from our concerns - can only be evaluated in utilitarian terms. Is this more-or-less what Harris is advocating?

He is saying that "science can answer moral questions" and "questions like "What is worth living for?" "What is worth dying for?" "What constitutes a good life?""