tudal

Hate is a concept, and it refers to physical reality -- eg, "I hate pizza." Yet I wouldn't say that hate is objective, where objective means "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices". Hate is subjective. How does morality differ?

Nowhere357

Yes. All emotions MUST be non-objective, per the definition. In fact, everything in our minds is subjective.

I think "morality" is a codified system, more or less, of our morals, which we develop or detect using our moral awareness or "moral sense".

Morals can differ from primary emotions like "hate" because morals don't arise until/unless there is social interaction. This agrees with my own experience (although I would expand "social interaction" to include other life and even the environment, and possibly our relation with ourselves).

Also notice that none of the primary emotions serve to describe moral awareness. Sometimes our morals push us to do things we don't like, etc. (Moral awareness and morality can involve any of the emotions, I guess.)

I think this may give morals an objective basis. They exist only with reference to external reality. Consider that the generally agreed upon morals are things that tend to benefit society. If there were a group mind, or if there are "group" instincts due to natural selection, this is how I would expect them to behave.

Pretty weak, but that's all I've got. If I can get it to stand, I won't have to take the "without God, morality is opinion" crap anymore.
__________________________________________________ _

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Function: noun
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

Main Entry: 1mor·al (this one doesn't help me much)
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
- mor·al·ly /-&-lE/ adverb

Philosophical Dictionary
moral / non-moral
Distinction between types of value, judgments, or propositions. Although a precise line is difficult to draw, there seems to be a genuine difference between universalizable moral concerns that impinge upon other people and merely personal matters of taste. For example:
"Murder is wrong." is a moral assertion, but
"This coffee is good." is a non-moral assertion.

moral sense
A putatively innate human faculty for distinguishing right from wrong. In the moral intuitionism of Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, the moral sense motivates proper conduct by enabling us to perceive the distinctive pleasure of moral rectitude.

tudal

Nowhere357,

OK. This isn't really the kind of answer I'm asking for, so let me start over:

You said, Can you think of any action, along with an intention and circumstance, that would be inherently wrong? You said (I believe), No, because the action would be analyzed subjectively.

When people say, "There is no objective morality", I take that to mean, "No action has an inherent right or wrong ascribed to it." For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with killing a child for the mere sake of pleasure.

Nowhere357

My comment concerned action alone. I think if we consider action+intention+circumstance we can begin to identify behavior patterns that are "inherently" wrong.

But your example includes intention and circumstance, so doesn't apply to the "No action has..." interpretation.

Although I like the example as an "inherently" wrong action+intention+circumstance.

Killing a child, in and of itself, is not of necessity an immoral act.
Killing a child for the mere sake of pleasure, is.

tudal

And why is it?

Vandrare

killing a child is wrong because of each persons individual right to live. but if the child was slowly dying in extreeme pain, would it still be wrong to kill out of mercy?

:-D Anna

tudal

Can you please show that humans have any sort of inherent rights? You say we have a right to live. Where does this right come from?

Adrammalech

That right, imo, comes from an inherent self-interest. If you don't want other people coming around and killing you, the best way to achieve this is to collectively make it morally reprehensible to kill, thereby protecting you in the process. As with killing the child out of mercy, if you didn't want to die if you were dying of a slow extremely painful death, then you would most likely see that child's death to be morally wrong, while if you thought that if the situation could be applied to you and you would want the mercy killing then you would believe it to be morally correct.

tudal

Then it's mere wishful thinking. We're missing a link, a link which in some way connects our inherent self-interest to the inherent rights that exist outside the minds of humans.

Why do humans have an inherent right to life, while grass has no such right to grow and remain uncut?

Nowhere357

Death is contrary to life.