The AntiChris

As a relative newcomer to II, this is an issue that I'm having great trouble resolving for myself. I'm not a philosophy scholar or academician, so please bear with me.

For me morality does seem to be subjective although I'm not convinced that this rules out the possibility that there are very basic, fundamental values which are shared by all rational people. Does this view suggest that I'm really an objectivist?

A common definition of objective is:

"Existing indepently of the human mind."

I assume that when we talk about "objective morality" we're not using this definition. If anyone does use this definition for their theory of objective morality, I'd be interested to know how they justify it.

So can anyone, preferably someone who subscribes to the existence of objective moral principles, explain what qualities/characteristics a moral principle would need for it to be considered objective?

Chris

Alonzo Fyfe

Beliefs about morality are subjective. But, then, beliefs about everything are subjective. Beliefs are subjective.

Whether the object of the belief (what is believed) is subjective depends on what is believed.

Actually, this is called "intersubjectivity" not "objectivity".

A shared belief that the earth is flat does not make it true that the earth is flat.


Actually, this tends to be a poor definition, because it rules out objective facts about the human mind.

A better definition is, "An objective truth is one in which the truth or falsity of a claim is independent of whether a person believes it to be true or false."

So, for example, say that person P believes that X. "P believes that X" is an objectively true statement. But this is a different question from whether X is true or false. If the truth of X depends on P's belief that X is true, then the truth of X is subjective, not objective. But "P believes that X" remains objectively true.

Even though it is an objective truth ABOUT a human mind (thus not independent of the mind).


One needs clarification on what you mean by "objective moral principles."

This phrase is often used to refer to intrinsic value properties -- a property of goodness or badness that a thing has "in itself".

No such properties exist. (These types of claims are all false.)

It is also used to refer to moral principles which are objectively true or false, but is quite consistent with the idea that those principles are principles ABOUT the human mind.

These types of statements are not fully mind-independent (since they are statements about the mind), but they are (or can be) objectively true or false.

The AntiChris

Alonzo Fyfe

Thanks. Not quite the response I was hoping for though!

Ok, let's try:

What qualities/characteristics must a moral theory have in order for it to be considered "moral objectivism"?

Is this any clearer?

Chris

dangin

Objective morality is an impossibility. The closest thing I've found is the "Morality of Prudence" which means you follow the laws of your society because that is the prudent thing to do. The authority of your society is knowable as is the punitive actions that society will take based upon anti social behavior perpetrated by individuals.

Many people think this fails because it does not provide a universal morality, but there is no natural universal morality. Individual populations of the same species that are separated ecologically have different customs and different "rules". From the dolphins that perform a certain type of jump, that no other pod of dolphins does, to the chimp tribes that attack each other and kill members of other tribes, while not engaging in such behavior within their own tribe. Humans are no different. If our culture "evolved" separately we have slightly different rules and customs.

However, the most important aspects of social life (murder, assualt, home invasion, violence against individuals) are deemed antisocial in nearly all cases, in nearly all cultures, and this is the true basis of most societal law. Even the ten commandments come from this (except for the ones about god this and god that).

The deal with understanding this is you have to be educated enough to know that maintaining the benefit of one's society is the best reason to be moral. We are social, we function best with the support of the society we live within, and so it is in our self interest to follow the rules of that society.

The AntiChris

You say "nearly all". Are there any exceptions to this?

If there were no exceptions would this suggest the existence of an "objective morality"?

Chris

HelenM

Hi Chris

Some thoughts...

This is my understanding of what Christians mean by 'objective morality'.

They mean that something is always wrong if it's wrong.

Not, it's sometimes wrong but ok if no-one sees, or it's ok if no-one gets hurt.

So, when they say homosexual behavior and sex outside marriage are wrong...they mean always. That's what they mean by 'objective'.

Now, supposing you had some community that decided "sex outside marriage is always wrong". They still decided it 'by consensus' - it was relative to the thoughts and wishes of the community. It's not 'objective' in the Christian sense. It could change if the next generation decided it was a silly rule, for example.

Christians don't believe that their moral values could ever change because God never changes. That means He won't ever change His mind about moral values.

So, yes, independent in the sense of, independent of 'human reasoning'; handed down from 'on high', decided by God entirely, no input requested or required from us

And so, I can't quite see how there would be a non-theistic objective morality...because aren't non-theistic moralities always derived by 'consensus of the community' and therefore subjective?

I hope that helps a bit...

love
Helen

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

The AntiChris

HelenSL

Thanks for your thoughts.

However, many atheists do indeed subscribe to a theory of objective moraliity and this is what I'm interested in.

Chris

HelenM

In that case, so am I, because I'm not sure what they would base that on!

love
Helen

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Mochaloca

Helen stated,
This is a question always interested me since I took philosophy (oh so many years ago!). In the same vein, I would like to know if an objective morality is the same thing as a moral absolute?

If slavery is now considered morally wrong, and there are no circumstances under which it would be justified, doesn't that mean that slavery was always wrong.

If you are right Helen, that atheistic morals are always subjective, then because slavery was an accepted practice in the U.S. prior to the civil war, slavery was not morally wrong at that time.
This doesn't make sense to me.

M.

Veil of Fire

Would a moral code born from the need for a tribe to survive and reproduce be considered "subjective"? For instance, murder is bad because it reduces the workforce of the tribe, and the breeding pool of the tribe, and makes the tribe less likely to survive?