beastmaster

I don't even understand what objective morality purports to be.

From where I am standing, objective morality makes as little sense as "objective personality."

OT1H, I am inclined to dismiss objective morality as incoherent or an oxymoron. OTOH, I am worried about drawing any conclusions because I am not sure what the proponent of "objective morality" is even trying to say.

If morality is objective, shouldn't it apply to everything -- living and non-living -- from rocks to bacteria to cats to humans? Otherwise, aren't we engaging in relativism? Why not?

If morality is objective, how do we know? Where is it? How do we measure it?

Are there objective exceptions to the objective rules? If so, how many exceptions? How do we know whether to apply an exception or the rule? Doesn't that require subjective judgment?

Am I the only person who finds this stuff utterly baffling?

Sorry, I'm no philosopher; I just have the nagging questions of a five-year-old.

Old Man

A good example of objective morality is that it is absolutely wrong to use a different (i.e. lower) standard when judging yourself, that when judging others. It's such a universal principle, cast in stone, that no-one can disagree.

I guess ultimately, objective morality is saying that there are such principles (as the one I identified above) which fulfill the necessary criteria of objectivity for morality to be upheld as objective in defiance of of the merely subjective "morality", which is even more variable and obscure, but which most people desire and uphold because the principles of objective morality are beyond them, or not interesting to them.

christ-on-a-stick

Hey beast,

(in no apparent order):
Definitely not. I am interested in this topic as well and have tried to follow many of the discussions on this topic but inevitably have gotten lost (or a headache). I would love to (try to) participate in a discussion on this starting more with "layman's terms" for those of us (ok me!) who are beginners.
I have often wondered this myself. It is difficult for me to comprehend the concept of "objective morality" when I consider the fact that in the grand scheme of things, we (human beings)
are merely specks of dust in a vast universe, our lives barely a blip on the cosmic radar screen. The universe appears to be indifferent; only humans (and seemingly some other animals but that's another discussion) CARE about this thing called "morality". The ocean doesn't consider whether or not to drown thousands in a tsunami; the wind does not think of those it kills with hurricane force. The tree is not aware of the person being lynched from it; only we care.

That being the case, it seems to me that morality cannot be anything more than a human concept/construct, and as such IS totally subjective. I would like to learn more about this / other people's views (nontheists, that is. I know the theists' take and have long since rejected it.)

beastmaster

Thanks Old Man.

So, is that the benchmark? A moral principle is objective if "no one can disagree" with it? [I assume "cast in stone" is a gratuitous metaphor].

I have three sets of questions as to this proposed test:

(1) Certainly, someone *can* disagree with anything.

Or are you saying that objective morality supersedes free will?

Aren't you really saying that no one *should* disagree with your anti-hypocrisy principle?

How is that in any sense objective? What we agree on is still based on synthesizing our subjective moralities.

(2) Who counts as "no one"? Certainly not rocks and cats and bacteria. Should we include sociopaths? Is it too frivolous to suggest that we better ignore the megalomaniacs -- I don't think they would agree with us that hypocrisy is bad.

Why do those people/entities/objects count or not count? Aren't we gerrymandering the results by deciding whose opinions count?

How do we know the megalomaniac is wrong? Just cuz "everybody knows" he's crazy?

(3) Finally, your test seems impossibly empirical -- how can we know what we all agree on? How many moral principles would meet your test, and how would we know?

Additional question: Are objective morals (the ones we all agree on) supposed to be more moral than our subjective morals (ones we don't all agree on)? If yes, why? Because of majority rule? Why so?

Thanks for reading -- this stuff stumps me!

Ronin

Beats me!

I just try to keep people from killing one another...and mop up when they do.

Seems like the right thing to do.

Is that wrong...I mean...morally?



I deter animals from causing suffering to others...and deter humans from causing suffering to animals...where does it all end?!

Everyone knows how to be good.

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, I believe that one of the major problems in discussing these subjects, is that there is more than one definition of the term "objective", and what one person ends up arguing AGAINST is not the same as what the other person is arguing FOR.

So, one challenge that I put to everybody is....if you think that the opposite view is to absurd for any sensible person to believe, see how far you get with the option that you don't really understand what your opponent is saying.

Anyway, two major definitions of "objective morality":

(1a) Right and wrong exist as a property of things independent of the human mind (a.k.a., absolutism).

(1b) Right and wrong exist as a matter of fact; moral statements are capable of being true or false (a.k.a., objective morality).

Its "opposites" are commonly described in terms like:

(2a) Relativism: What is right for one person is wrong for another person.

(2b) Subjectivism: Right or wrong are inventions of the human mind.

The trouble is, these are not opposites.

The human mind exists in the world, and there can be objective facts ABOUT the human mind. And relative properties are a matter of objective reality. New York is (roughly) north of DC. This is both a relative statement (giving New York's location relative to DC), and an objective fact about which people are capable of being right and wrong. And, in fact, each human mind that exists, exists as an entity which is independent of any other human mind.

With all of these complexities, I often find people in this debate simply arguing past each other. I find it easy to read the claims made by people on both sides of a debate, and discover there are a number of ways in which both of them can be right -- except on those points where they say that the other must be wrong.

K

Old Man:

Does this universal principle apply to a child and his/her guardian?The child should not expect the adult to behave any more responsibly than the child himself/herself does. If this objective moral truly is universal, it should apply in this case as well.

Darwin26

I'm having self esteem issues ......feeling inferior and that everyone is Immoral.

Old Man

Insert the word reasonably "....can reasonably disagree". People disagree with it all the time. A bank robber disagrees with it, because whereas he regards it right that everyone else should create wealth, he alone is at libery to steal from the wealth created by others.

I am saying no-one can reasonably disagree, just as no-one can reasonably disagree that the earth is spherical, rather than flat.

Its objective because it is open to proof and disproof. About any judgment that you make, I could enter into an inquiry to determine whether or not you applied the same standard to yourself, and arrive at a true/false conclusion.

But subject moral standards are maningless - they are based on the principles of dogamtism, and vanity, and can neither be proved nor disproved.

I think I answered this question above. The only basis for disagreeement is the notion that society ought to be inherently amoral. In other words, disagreement with the principle is shown to subvert the whole of morality, rather than a mere part of it.

The meglomaniac is not necessarily wrong. Democracy is not necessarily right. Everyone knows that demcracy is imperfect, the lowest common denominator, and whilst possibly safeguarding society against the worst excesses of tyranny, is certainly not a recipe for good government. In many ways, the 20th century was the era for democracy. Now there are many pseudo democacies, which are similar to facsist dictatorships. The big demcratic parties are in reality competing propaganda machines, who will allow no-one else a slice of the cake. For instance, in the UK, one must stump up £5000 just to be a candidiate in an election. So where is the democracy? In the US, one has to spend many millions. So where is the democracy?

No-one has ever raised any serious objection to my test. I have already cited the example of the bank robber. Another principle is immorality. Is there really anyone who does not consider it wrong when his wife commits adultery? Yet how many are prepared to do the same to others when it suits them? In a sense, a society's overall moral sensibility can be determined by the extent to which it puts the hypocrisy principle into practice.

I think you are being too rigid in your interpretation of "agreement". The jails are full of people who disagree. The rulers themselves disagree. However, whether people say they disagree is not the point, it is whether they can come up with a valid argument for disagreeing that is the point. And no-one can.

However, many objective moral principles, deriveable from the first objective moral principle, are not enforced, and many subjective moral principle's are - like for instance the notion that "one ought not to take the law into your own hands". Why on earth not? Can anyone show how this is derived from the first objective moral principle?

Marz Blak

Interesting thread. I don't want to interject myself into the argument; I'd rather sit back and see where it goes, as it has already proven instructive.

However, I did feel compelled to reply to Old Man's question here. I personally would not consider it wrong were my wife to have sex with another person. In fact, I don't see it as a moral issue at all per se, and would appreciate anyone's explaining why it should be seen as such.