Wiploc

Great question! I've never gotten any sense out of a Christian on this issue.

Here's what I say to get past the issue of defining objective morality: "You're talking about real morality, prescriptive rather than descriptive, moral rules that people ought to comply with, right?" Some of them will accept that meaning, leave off defining objectivity, and go on with the conversation.





And these mean? At the moment I can make no more sense of them than of objective morality.



I think this is fair. When a Christian defines it, you can always test his definition in a way that will make him switch to another definition.



It applies only to "free moral agents," people who make moral choices. Rocks don't qualify. People will differ as to whether dogs and crazy people qualify.



Absolutely not. Good luck finding answers.
crc

Autonemesis

Then the objectiveness of objective morality depends upon whether we can objectively agree on who is and is not reasonable. You should therefore call it reasonable morality. That would be less obfuscating than calling it "objective."

Well this is quite a bit different than the reasonableness benchmark you mentioned before. This sounds like symmetry is what you are really paying attention to, not objectivity. Perhaps you should call it reasonably symmetrical morality, instead of "objective." That seems more honest to me, judging by my admittedly subjective ethical barometer.

Yet in order to remain consistent, once you make a moral judgment, you must stick to it dogmatically or undermine the objectivity of the moral principle that you used to decide it. I do not see, if I accept your criticism of not-objective morality, how this can be called an improvement.

Wiploc

Well I'm real curious about your example. I'm happy to assume that judging yourself differently than others is so common that it must be an adaptive response. It's how we get thru the day. It's an element of mental health.

I bet the shrinks would agree.



I don't know that any robbers think they are the only ones entitled. And I'm sure we could come up with some set of facts where you thought you were entitled.



Do you have any other examples?



You don't get out much. aparently. The answer is yes.

crc

avalanche:ix

the only objectively right moral rule that i can think of is do as you wish as long as it doesn't hurt others. this means tolerance of all different views and lifestyles around you so long as they don't mess with you/yours. such an attitude to life is largely adopted by my society, you don't judge others. live and let live. ofcourse, there are those who 'disagree' with certain lifestyles, but they make judgements, thus i would consider live and let live still objectively right, as it is the only rule i know of that lets each person decide for themselves what is right and what is not.

interestingly enough ofcourse, this principle is the same as that which is at the core of philosophical satanism.

christ-on-a-stick

OT1H - One the one hand
OTOH - On the other hand

beastmaster

Let me clarify that this thread is not directed exclusively to Xns, but to anyone. Some non-theists are proponents of objective morality.

But if morality exists "independent of the human mind," as some proponents of objective morality claim, why does it apply *only* to human minds?

If rocks are exempt because they lack a human mind, doesn't that mean that morality *is* in fact dependent on the human mind?

beastmaster

Good, that's what I figured.

Yes, I am trying to give objective morality the benefit of the doubt even though I am at a complete loss to understand it.

Thanks. Let me tear right in.

What does it mean to say that morality is "independent of the human mind" if it applies only to the human mind? If morality were truly independent of the human mind, then it should apply to things that don't have human minds, like rocks and volcanos and dogs and bacteria, right? Absurd? Why not?

I cannot understand the word "exist" in this context to be anything other than a metaphor. We are pretending that right and wrong "exist" in the sense that apples and chairs exist. Is "exist" meant to be taken literally? Maybe yes for (1a) and no for (1b)?

To me, right and wrong are just the noun-forms for adjectives. It makes no more sense to say that "beauty" exists than to say that "beautiful" exists. Beauty is just a convenient word to summarize all the beautiful things in the world in one set. What does it mean to say that an adjective exists?

The "capable of being proved true or false" formulation makes some more sense to me, but I am going to think about it for now.

Good thoughts. This sounds like a sufficient justification for subjectivism and relativism. But I'm going to think about this and see if I get how objective morality fits in, if at all.

beastmaster

I agree with your moral principle, but what does it add to claim that it is *objectively* right?

Let's take the opposite of your philosophical satanism and call it the principle of judging others.

What of the principle of judging others: Is it (1) objectively right too, (2) objectively wrong, (3) subjectively right but not objectively right, (4) subjectively and objectively wrong, (5) an objectively right *exception* to the objectively right rule of philosophical satanism, or (6) none of the above?

jlowder

Moral objectivism is the theory that moral statements express propositions; the truth-value of a moral proposition need make no reference to anyone’s subjective states, capacities, conventions, beliefs, attitudes, or desires; and at least one moral proposition is actually true. Moral objectivism should not be confused with moral absolutism, which I shall define as the view that moral principles are necessarily exceptionless, since this precludes a philosopher from being both an objectivist and a nonabsolutist. A nonabsolutist holds that “although moral principles override all other considerations… no moral duty has absolute weight or strict priority; each moral principle must be weighed against other moral principles.”

I hope this helps.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

LHP Adept

Thank you, you have succinctly expressed something I have been saying all along.
As human beings, we can only understand/appreciate/express HUMAN notions of morality/ethics, viewed from our perspective AS human beings.