99Percent

dshimel: No, nothing of the sort, how did you come up with that?No, again you seem to confuse concepts with concrete things. God is a concept (an illogical one at that) which cannot exist in concrete reality of things.Thats a definition based on actual real objects, which clearly does not deal with morality since morality is obviously not a physical concrete entity you can perceive with your senses. The defintion of "objective" I am reffering to is that which is devoid of emotion, subjectivity of experience, free of personal prejudices, etc. As in being objective about ideas and concepts that are logically and rationally derived.

Since morality falls within the dimension of human experience and social interactions it follows logically that morality exists only within our human understanding and concepts. To claim for example that in order for objective morality to exist there must be an absolute good or bad even outside the human mind and therefore humanity is bogus, because there would no longer be any humans that can interpret precisely this good or bad. That logic rather belongs with theistic arguments where God will always supposedly exist for example.

I am not redefining it. I am trying to make it clear by what I mean by it.

dshimel

So, you're talking about the objective subjective things instead of the subjective subjective things. It is impossible for a person to be think about something in the kind of objective manner you describe. They think with their mind. Their mind is programmed with all kinds of experiences, prejudices, pre-conceived notions, emotional responses.

Ideas are subjective. All of them!!!!! Every idea is, by definition, subjective.

Webster again
Subjective:
a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

So, something that can be sensed, is objective. Something that only exists as an idea is, by definition, subjective.

As I said, you can't just go and redefine "objective" to include subjective things.

Morality is an idea, a concept, which by definition of objective and subjective, puts it wholy in the world of subjectiveness. There are no objective ideas. There is no subjective matter or energy.

Morality is subjective, thus, up to individual and sociatal choice. One can't justify enforcing thier morality on another using appeal to authority.

JerryM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 99Percent

JerryM: We do not need to base our objective morality on evolutionary theory. It rests basically on the premise that we all have free will as rational human beings. Scientifically we cannot prove we have free will as that would require us to go back in time (and even then our observations taken back in time could interfere with the "experiment"). In fact science currently seems to dictate that we don't have free will in the absolute sense as we are bound by the laws of physics. However in the practical human sense it is clear that we do have free will, it reason thats telling us, not science.

I don't quite understand what you mean by an objective morality based on free will. Maybe we're talking about different things. What I mean by the term "objective morality" is a guideline, or a yardstick by which we can tell right from wrong, or good from bad. And one that is outside of any one individual's feelings, values, or preferences. One that can be seen and used by any observer. And one based on fact, as best we know it--not on myth, legend, or superstition. My point is that studying human society can give us a somewhat objective basis for determining if actions are right or wrong--we can decide how such actions affect all of us as a society. It's not perfect by any means, and there are inevitably subjective interpretations that must be made. But it is more objective than anything else.

dshimel

"My point is that studying human society can give us a somewhat objective basis for determining if actions are right or wrong"

What? How in the heck are you going to do that? Actions and outcomes? Then you must use some value system to decide which outcome seems best to you. Anything based on subjective value judgements, is subjective.

The golden rule is so much easier. Slave owneres would not have wanted to be enslaved. Therfore, they should not enslave others. The Nazi's would not have wanted their race to be exterminated, therefore, they should not have attempted to exterminate another race. My ex wife would not have wanted me to have an affair, therefore, she should not have had an affair.

All we can do is be nice people, hope others will be nice people, then establish a set of laws which dictate forbiden behavior and a system of punishment for violation of these laws.

Dr. Retard

Gurdur wrote:
People genuinely disagree about a lot of topics: evolution / creation, God's existence, whether morality is objective. That doesn't mean that, where these topics are concerned, there is no correct answer. You can't derive "there is no fact of the matter as to whether p is true" from "people genuinely disagree as to whether p is true".

Maybe we should reject objective morality. But the fact that people genuinely disagree is not a good reason to do so.

JerryM

For dshimel:

What I'm talking about is not just what ethical rules are valid. The golden rule can work for many things, but I can envision specific situations where what someone else may want done to him is not what I would want done to me. And the golden rule doesn't fully give reasons why something is right or wrong. For example, you mentioned slavery. Yes, it is wrong for one group of people to enslave another. But why? Just because the slave masters wouldn't want to be enslaved themselves? That's probably true, but is that really a completely adequate explanation? Rather, if we study history, we will see that slave holding societies tend to be weak economically, are usually oppressive, must devote much energy and resources into preventing resistance among their slaves, and usually succumb at some point or another. Slaveholding is wrong because it is ultimately harmful to society, as well as to the slave. More generally, we can say that any severe restriction of human freedom is wrong, not just because we all want to be free, but also because history shows us such societies are unstable, and usually fall if they do not change. This provides objective reasons why slavery and tyranny are wrong. I agree that no totally objective moral system is possible. What I'm describing is a rational basis for moral reasoning with at least some degree of objectivity.

dshimel

There is no reason something is right or wrong. It is a value judgement. That is the point. People want there to be objective morality, and then to claim that their morality is that correct objective morality, so that they can have justification for making their morality be "the morality".

There is not a "the morality". There is the golden rule, being a nice person, and setting laws and punishments for forbidden behavior.

Of course it is completely sdequate. Don't treat people in a way they don't want to be treated, unless through immoral action on their part, they've given up the right to be treated morally. If they don't want to be enslaved, and have done nothing to justify such enslavment, then it is immoral to enslave them.

NO F....ing way!!!!!!! What if a study of history shows that it is good for a society to have slavery. Does it then become "right" to take innocent people, turn them into property, and force them to work far harder than the average person, without just reward?

Seems like what you are describing is a way of using history as a means of justifying treating people in a way you don't want to be treated. If we find that a study of history finds that most of the most powerful nations in the world (Greece, Roman Empire, Aztec Empire, Spanish Empire, United States of America) allowed slavery during their rise to power, and that these nations provided a superior standard of living to their citizens, then using your "objective morality" study of history crap, we could justify slavery.

Morality MUST be subjectivly based on the golden rule. Anything else is making an authority out of unqualified authority.

99Percent

dshimel: But thats not the sense of the word "objective" that I am refering to. You are using subjective/objective as refering to objects/ideas.

Lets break it down so we can see the difference.

There are real objects, physical entities like the island of Cuba, or the planet Mars.

There are imaginary ideas and concepts such as the pink unicorn, love, the circle, the number 10.

Then we have subjective and objective views of both real objects and imaginary ones.

For example this cup I am pointing at is an object but subjectively it could be either something that holds liquids or simply a clump of dried clay or nice picture of a cat (since it has one). What that object is, is indeed subject to interpretation. However it is a rational and logical thing that we understand each other when I say "cup" as something that holds liquids. This is the realm of which I was talking about in the first paragraph of my OP when I say that matter is not simply atoms.

It gets more complicated when we want to convey ideas that have no actual physical representations. So when I refer to emotions and feelings in my discourse which only individuals can perceive then we can appeal to saying that you are basing on subjective persuasion. For example when I say that eating ice cream is delicious and therefore everyone should eat ice cream because it is "morally good", its obviously subjective because for someone else ice cream could be disgusting. Likewise when I say for example that running marathons are bad (or good) for your health, its subjective too because for someone suffering from a bad back, running a marathon can certainly be hazareous and therefore bad. But for others running marathons make them feel accomplished and good. Another example is the appeal to veganism because killing animals is immoral because it causes them pain and suffering. This is clearly an appeal to subjectisitic morality because it is based on emotions and feelings.

However there are concepts that are universal (at least in the human sense) that are devoid of any personal interpretations and that apply to all. For example the concept of a boat is something that floats on water however you will not find a "pure" representation of what is a boat. The concept of a tree is a non animal living organism that has a trunk, branches, leaves etc. It is from these concepts that we derive objective morality because it is derived and applied equally to everyone of us as human rational beings that have free will.

Objective morality is not based on emotions and feelings or subjective interpretations or evaluations. It is derived on rational and logical concepts understandable by all human beings. However you keep on confusing this by saying that since morality is something that does not actually exist outside of our minds, then morality can never be objective. Its a different use of the word "objective" and therefore not relevant to what we are discussing.

Yes there are countless objective ideas. For example when I say the number 10, you know exactly what I am talking about even though that number does not exist in reality as an object. For example when I say humans have free will and that they can lie, you know exactly what I am saying though free will and the absolute truth can never be scientifically proven. Objective morality is not based on science or pure logic. Its based on reason.

dshimel

Dude, were going round and round. Again, you are talking about the objective subjective things, and again I have to say that there is no such thing.

There is a cup sitting on my desk. Well, really 5 cups. Even when I'm not here, the cups are. The cups are objects. You could have the cleaning lady count them, and she'd come up with the same number.

When I write you an email of them, the bits of data are objects.

However, the image, the idea of the cups that I think about, and that forms in your mind when you read about my cups, is purely subjective. Your image of the possible sizes and shapes of these cups is totally within your mind, it is subjective. No one else can sense your image of my cups.

It seems that waht you are talking about, isn't objective morality. Again, objective being something that exists outside the mind. What you are talking about is reasoned universal morality. That is fine, as long as you realize that the morality is based on your mental conditioning.

Since morality exists within the mind, it is a product of the mind. There is no way for morality to exist outside of personal experience, prejudice and values. There is no pure logic or reason that comes from a human mind. To think there is, is to deny reality.

JerryM

No, the study of history shows just the opposite. History confirms that the most stable and productive societies do not oppress their citizens and value the freedom of all people to achieve their highest potential. But let me pose a question about an actual event that occured in my area some years ago. A landlord refused to rent to a gay couple. He said he felt homosexuality was wrong, and if he was forced to rent a house to such persons he would be acceding to immorality. He also stated that he himself would accept being treated the same way. He felt that a landlord should be able to rent or not rent to anyone he wanted. If a landlord didn't like him because he was of Irish extraction, that was fine with him. This man was following the golden rule, treating others the same way he expected to be treated. Do you think this is a morally correct position?