[Debate] Morality is Objective

[kimb]

Before I present my argument for why morality is objective let me start off by clarifying a few things.

The word morality, like all words, doesn't have intrinsic meaning. It's we use a label put on a concept. The biggest issue with people talking about morality, is that they use the same label (morality/morals/etc), to map entirely different or sometimes very similar concepts. Some people use the world morality to mean "what god does", some "how to benefit humanity", and others "how to promote peace and happiness", etc. If you're talking about definition A, and I'm talking about definition B, and we both label that term "morality", we'll forever talk past each other.

I'm not here to debate the definitions, but the concepts,so long as everyone has a general understanding of concepts behind the words we're discussing, we can move on from dictionary debates and actually cover some ground.

The Concept Behind Objective Morality
We are physical beings in a physical universe, making us subject to following physical laws. Based off those laws, we can state truths on how things effect us. If we can agree that the concept of morality is built around one's well-being, there are simple observations we can conclude; life is preferable to death, freedom is preferable to slavery, "being punched in the face is preferable to not being punched in the face". Death, slavery, physical violence, and things of that manner are violations of well-being. Building off simple situations, we can develop a more complex morality system. In every moral situation, there are a finite number of possible actions, and from comparing the benefits and consequences of those actions, we can determine which action or set of actions represent the most objectively moral decision.



Morality is Subjective Argument
The first objection people will make went confronted with the notion of objective morality is that it is actually subjective. This belief stems from the fact that not everyone has an identical moral code due to their personal preferences such as what they find essential, being subject to different cultural environments and societal laws, and from the fact that there is not a consensus for every moral situation or dilemma on which decision should be made. But these factors are all irrelevant when it comes to the objectivity of morality.

The objectivity of morality does not rely on people living up to moral standards, so pointing out that not all people agree does nothing to hinder objective morality. I know that some things are right or wrong. And just because we aren't able to come to an objective absolute, does not mean there isn't one, nor does it make all possible actions equivalent. Here are a few scenarios.

1. Rape, Slavery, and Racism is not moral because it violates well-being, therefore making it immoral. It would not matter if every single person on the world planet condoned rape, slavery, or racism. It wouldn't make them right any more then if every person believed 2+2=5.

2. Conceptually, it is unfair to pay people born on a Wednesday less then those born any other day. That act is unfair and wrong, objectively, by definition, regardless of what other cultures, people, or times think, meaning something can be objectively unfair and wrong, therefore objective morality exists.

3. 1 kilogram of steel = 1 kilogram of feathers. This objectively true because we can demonstrate that 1 kilogram of steel is equal in weight to 1 kilogram of feathers in the physical world, and we're able to do this without needing 100% of the population agreeing with that statement. On that same note, it would not become objectively true because 100% of people agree that 1 kilogram of steel = 1 kilogram of feathers, because what people think do not change the reality of what defines weight or what defines a kilogram.

From these, you can conclude that just because objective morality exists does not mean that everyone will agree on the moral facts any more then the fact that objective physical facts doesn't guarantee that everyone will agree on them.

 

[Inmate]

From what I've grasped: and it's little: you're saying that it doesn't matter what people think. If we all agreed that rape was moral; it wouldn't change the fact that it's immoral?

 

[kimb]

From what I've grasped: and it's little: you're saying that it doesn't matter what people think. If we all agreed that rape was moral; it wouldn't change the fact that it's immoral?

Correct. Just like how in the 1800's, just because slavery was not seen as immoral did not make it immoral.

 

[Caliburn]

Not really, by its very being morality is completely subjective and there is zero doubt about that. Your examples are plainly wrong. Laws of nature and mathematical formulas belong into the world of exact sciences, which can be verified. Morality however belongs into the world of human sciences, which can never be completely objective and will always hold a subjective and changing character. The entire concept of morality is a concoction of the human mind and it doesn't exist anywhere else, which is very different form a natural law.

A kilogram of feathers will always weight the same as a kilogram of steel. If humanity disappears that still will be true. Of course you will need a human to realize and verify that and the usage of numerical and alphabetical systems will be needed if that human wants to visualize that and those of course are subjective. Nonetheless they will weigh the same. To be blunt this is 'written in stone'. The nature of morality however is different. If humanity disappears, morality disappears. It does not exist outside the human mind, ergo it's by its very nature subjective. It's something humans decided on themselves and if you don't believe that, I suggest you go talk to animals about their perceptions on things like murder, rape and morality as a whole.

Morality was made by humans. From the moment humans are involved, it always gains a subjective element.

If I would do the exact same thing as what you did, only in reverse, you would get something like this: recently a mathematical treaty was discovered in the British National Archives. After extensive literary, linguistic, paleographic etc. research it was concluded that the treaty was most likely written by prominent mathematician mister X. As the treaty says 2 + 2 = 5, henceforth 2 + 2 will now always equal 5 till further information arises. This makes no sense. That's how you do historical research, not mathematics. And you did something similar: applying an exact science onto a human one and that's plainly wrong.

The only way you could argument yourself out of here, is by claiming that outside the entire human race there's a set of moralities that's universally true regardless of what ever happens to mankind, which can only be true if you're going to involve religion into this as that's indeed what they often claim. Of course if you do that, well then this becomes a discussion of whether gods exist or not.

 

[Marin]

Not really, by its very being morality is completely subjective and there is zero doubt about that. Your examples are plainly wrong. Laws of nature and mathematical formulas belong into the world of exact sciences, which can be verified. Morality however belongs into the world of human sciences, which can never be completely objective and will always hold a subjective and changing character. The entire concept of morality is a concoction of the human mind and it doesn't exist anywhere else, which is very different form a natural law.

A kilogram of feathers will always weight the same as a kilogram of steel. If humanity disappears that still will be true. Of course you will need a human to realize and verify that and the usage of numerical and alphabetical systems will be needed if that human wants to visualize that and those of course are subjective. Nonetheless they will weigh the same. To be blunt this is 'written in stone'. The nature of morality however is different. If humanity disappears, morality disappears. It does not exist outside the human mind, ergo it's by its very nature subjective. It's something humans decided on themselves and if you don't believe that, I suggest you go talk to animals about their perceptions on things like murder, rape and morality as a whole.

Morality was made by humans. From the moment humans are involved, it always gains a subjective element.

If I would do the exact same thing as what you did, only in reverse, you would get something like this: recently a mathematical treaty was discovered in the British National Archives. After extensive literary, linguistic, paleographic etc. research it was concluded that the treaty was most likely written by prominent mathematician mister X. As the treaty says 2 + 2 = 5, henceforth 2 + 2 will now always equal 5 till further information arises. This makes no sense. That's how you do historical research, not mathematics. And you did something similar: applying an exact science onto a human one and that's plainly wrong.

The only way you could argument yourself out of here, is by claiming that outside the entire human race there's a set of moralities that's universally true regardless of what ever happens to mankind, which can only be true if you're going to involve religion into this as that's indeed what they often claim. Of course if you do that, well then this becomes a discussion of whether gods exist or not.

If this were the case academia wouldn't be heavily divided on the issue of moral realism/antirealism and which specific kind of realism/antirealism is right. I don't see anything in your post that supports the claim that morality is completely subjective let alone anything that makes the claim certain.

Everything you say about moralty stands only if we side with the general fictionalism in regards to moral terms. If one is a platonist (as fiji is) moral values are indeed cut in stone the same way a relation between 1 kg of different materials is. I myself, am not a platonist though, so I won't defend the view but you shouldn't blatantly claim that things are so slam and dunk when in fact platonism is a very popular and defended view. To argue against the OPs views you'd have to say something more than simply invoke the position you defend.

That aside, moral values, even if dependant on a certain mind can still exist in the abscence of humanity or physically dependant minds in general. Being a theist I find root for morality in the mind of God but you recognize this in your final paragraph and say we should debate God's existence, but this is hardly an acceptable proposal. We would end up on debating God's existence for any controversial matter such as abortion or homosexuality (after all if God exists we'd be wise not to make him angry). To keep things on topic some things need to be assumed for the sake of the argument and how succesful one is will depend on the argument. How much one should assume is something you can protest to but to insist on going all the way to the topic of God is absurd.

OT: I do indeed agree that morality is objective and that our moral intuitions provide a prima facie reason for accepting the actual existence of some moral code. Though I don't agree with the utilitarianism that flows through your post (have you been reading Sam Harris or something lol).

 

[Avani]

If this were the case academia wouldn't be heavily divided on the issue of moral realism/antirealism and which specific kind of realism/antirealism is right. I don't see anything in your post that supports the claim that morality is completely subjective let alone anything that makes the claim certain.

Everything you say about moralty stands only if we side with the general fictionalism in regards to moral terms. If one is a platonist (as fiji is) moral values are indeed cut in stone the same way a relation between 1 kg of different materials is. I myself, am not a platonist though, so I won't defend the view but you shouldn't blatantly claim that things are so slam and dunk when in fact platonism is a very popular and defended view. To argue against the OPs views you'd have to say something more than simply invoke the position you defend.

That aside, moral values, even if dependant on a certain mind can still exist in the abscence of humanity or physically dependant minds in general. Being a theist I find root for morality in the mind of God but you recognize this in your final paragraph and say we should debate God's existence, but this is hardly an acceptable proposal. We would end up on debating God's existence for any controversial matter such as abortion or homosexuality (after all if God exists we'd be wise not to make him angry). To keep things on topic some things need to be assumed for the sake of the argument and how succesful one is will depend on the argument. How much one should assume is something you can protest to but to insist on going all the way to the topic of God is absurd.

OT: I do indeed agree that morality is objective and that our moral intuitions provide a prima facie reason for accepting the actual existence of some moral code. Though I don't agree with the utilitarianism that flows through your post (have you been reading Sam Harris or something lol).

It seems you didn't understand his point about God.

 

[Marin]

It seems you didn't understand his point about God.

Since you didn't explain yourself it seems like you made a pointless comment here.

 

[Inmate]

Not really, by its very being morality is completely subjective and there is zero doubt about that. Your examples are plainly wrong. Laws of nature and mathematical formulas belong into the world of exact sciences, which can be verified. Morality however belongs into the world of human sciences, which can never be completely objective and will always hold a subjective and changing character. The entire concept of morality is a concoction of the human mind and it doesn't exist anywhere else, which is very different form a natural law.

A kilogram of feathers will always weight the same as a kilogram of steel. If humanity disappears that still will be true. Of course you will need a human to realize and verify that and the usage of numerical and alphabetical systems will be needed if that human wants to visualize that and those of course are subjective. Nonetheless they will weigh the same. To be blunt this is 'written in stone'. The nature of morality however is different. If humanity disappears, morality disappears. It does not exist outside the human mind, ergo it's by its very nature subjective. It's something humans decided on themselves and if you don't believe that, I suggest you go talk to animals about their perceptions on things like murder, rape and morality as a whole.

Morality was made by humans. From the moment humans are involved, it always gains a subjective element.

If I would do the exact same thing as what you did, only in reverse, you would get something like this: recently a mathematical treaty was discovered in the British National Archives. After extensive literary, linguistic, paleographic etc. research it was concluded that the treaty was most likely written by prominent mathematician mister X. As the treaty says 2 + 2 = 5, henceforth 2 + 2 will now always equal 5 till further information arises. This makes no sense. That's how you do historical research, not mathematics. And you did something similar: applying an exact science onto a human one and that's plainly wrong.

The only way you could argument yourself out of here, is by claiming that outside the entire human race there's a set of moralities that's universally true regardless of what ever happens to mankind, which can only be true if you're going to involve religion into this as that's indeed what they often claim. Of course if you do that, well then this becomes a discussion of whether gods exist or not.

"... concoction of the mind and it doesn't exist anywhere anywhere else." You're really smart. I couldn't think of a simpler way to put it

 

[BenjerminGaye]

"If we can agree that the concept of morality is built around one's well-being"

doesn't this like make morality subjective?

 

[Inmate]

If this were the case academia wouldn't be heavily divided on the issue of moral realism/antirealism and which specific kind of realism/antirealism is right. I don't see anything in your post that supports the claim that morality is completely subjective let alone anything that makes the claim certain.

Everything you say about moralty stands only if we side with the general fictionalism in regards to moral terms. If one is a platonist (as fiji is) moral values are indeed cut in stone the same way a relation between 1 kg of different materials is. I myself, am not a platonist though, so I won't defend the view but you shouldn't blatantly claim that things are so slam and dunk when in fact platonism is a very popular and defended view. To argue against the OPs views you'd have to say something more than simply invoke the position you defend.

That aside, moral values, even if dependant on a certain mind can still exist in the abscence of humanity or physically dependant minds in general. Being a theist I find root for morality in the mind of God but you recognize this in your final paragraph and say we should debate God's existence, but this is hardly an acceptable proposal. We would end up on debating God's existence for any controversial matter such as abortion or homosexuality (after all if God exists we'd be wise not to make him angry). To keep things on topic some things need to be assumed for the sake of the argument and how succesful one is will depend on the argument. How much one should assume is something you can protest to but to insist on going all the way to the topic of God is absurd.

OT: I do indeed agree that morality is objective and that our moral intuitions provide a prima facie reason for accepting the actual existence of some moral code. Though I don't agree with the utilitarianism that flows through your post (have you been reading Sam Harris or something lol).

I'm so surprised you wouldn't believe how surprised I am of your comment.

How can it exist "without" human existence?

 

[LustyLover]

Hilare.

 

[kimb]

Not really, by its very being morality is completely subjective and there is zero doubt about that. Your examples are plainly wrong. Laws of nature and mathematical formulas belong into the world of exact sciences, which can be verified. Morality however belongs into the world of human sciences, which can never be completely objective and will always hold a subjective and changing character. The entire concept of morality is a concoction of the human mind and it doesn't exist anywhere else, which is very different form a natural law.

A kilogram of feathers will always weight the same as a kilogram of steel. If humanity disappears that still will be true. Of course you will need a human to realize and verify that and the usage of numerical and alphabetical systems will be needed if that human wants to visualize that and those of course are subjective. Nonetheless they will weigh the same. To be blunt this is 'written in stone'. The nature of morality however is different. If humanity disappears, morality disappears. It does not exist outside the human mind, ergo it's by its very nature subjective. It's something humans decided on themselves and if you don't believe that, I suggest you go talk to animals about their perceptions on things like murder, rape and morality as a whole.

Morality was made by humans. From the moment humans are involved, it always gains a subjective element.

If I would do the exact same thing as what you did, only in reverse, you would get something like this: recently a mathematical treaty was discovered in the British National Archives. After extensive literary, linguistic, paleographic etc. research it was concluded that the treaty was most likely written by prominent mathematician mister X. As the treaty says 2 + 2 = 5, henceforth 2 + 2 will now always equal 5 till further information arises. This makes no sense. That's how you do historical research, not mathematics. And you did something similar: applying an exact science onto a human one and that's plainly wrong.

The only way you could argument yourself out of here, is by claiming that outside the entire human race there's a set of moralities that's universally true regardless of what ever happens to mankind, which can only be true if you're going to involve religion into this as that's indeed what they often claim. Of course if you do that, well then this becomes a discussion of whether gods exist or not.

Morality is not entirely a concoction of the of the human mind. The concept of morality is based in reality similarly to how the sciences(biology, chemistry, cosmology) are man-made "concoction" or system of models used to describe things based in reality. And morality does transcend human bounds due to the fact that it deals with physical beings in the physical realm who obey the laws of the universe. If the human race ceased to exist, the concept of morality would still remain true; rape, murder, or slavery would still be a violation of well-being, whether or not there's someone to enact it or react to it, similarly to how most concepts in biology would remain true if all living things would cease to exist.

I also don't see the lines you're trying to draw between your 2+2 = 5 scenario and my argument, but I'm probably the one at fault. I'm not sure if your addressing my first premise, or my entire argument.

doesn't this like make morality subjective?

If someone doesn't believe morality has to do with well-being, then they're talking about something else.

 

[Marin]

I'm so surprised you wouldn't believe how surprised I am of your comment.

How can it exist "without" human existence?

By positing an immaterial transcendental mind which grounds morality in a semi-platonic sense - God.

 

[Caliburn]

If this were the case academia wouldn't be heavily divided on the issue of moral realism/antirealism and which specific kind of realism/antirealism is right. I don't see anything in your post that supports the claim that morality is completely subjective let alone anything that makes the claim certain.

Everything you say about moralty stands only if we side with the general fictionalism in regards to moral terms. If one is a platonist (as fiji is) moral values are indeed cut in stone the same way a relation between 1 kg of different materials is. I myself, am not a platonist though, so I won't defend the view but you shouldn't blatantly claim that things are so slam and dunk when in fact platonism is a very popular and defended view. To argue against the OPs views you'd have to say something more than simply invoke the position you defend.

That aside, moral values, even if dependant on a certain mind can still exist in the abscence of humanity or physically dependant minds in general. Being a theist I find root for morality in the mind of God but you recognize this in your final paragraph and say we should debate God's existence, but this is hardly an acceptable proposal. We would end up on debating God's existence for any controversial matter such as abortion or homosexuality (after all if God exists we'd be wise not to make him angry). To keep things on topic some things need to be assumed for the sake of the argument and how succesful one is will depend on the argument. How much one should assume is something you can protest to but to insist on going all the way to the topic of God is absurd.

OT: I do indeed agree that morality is objective and that our moral intuitions provide a prima facie reason for accepting the actual existence of some moral code. Though I don't agree with the utilitarianism that flows through your post (have you been reading Sam Harris or something lol).

By positing an immaterial transcendental mind which grounds morality in a semi-platonic sense - God.

People are divided about pretty much anything and that has been like that for thousands of years. Why? Amongst other because we are a subjective species. The fact that you start defining people here as belonging to different schools and whatnot is a striking example of that as that's being subjective and not even a little.

You also seem to haven't understand a thing of what I just said. I suggest you read my post again as the OP, an individual, decides that his set of personal moralities are objectively true while it's blatantly obvious he's making countless of subjective selections and decisions, using invalid comparisons and methods trying to prove his point.

That you didn't understand what I said becomes quite clear on your reaction of me mentioning god. A god is omnipotent and all powerful, he can make you taste sound and smell light. He can turn reason into nonsense and turn left into right. So he can create an objective set of moralities, which makes this discussion pointless as first you would need to prove that god exists. Most religions also have that set of moralities: 10 commandments, 7 deadly sins...that kind of stuff.

So it's fundamentally necessary for this discussion to assume he does not exist. But where is then your reasoning, your proof, your arguments? As neither you nor the OP provided anything even remotely of that order. You complain that I "should do more", but I did more than you and the OP combined and I said more than enough.

It's simple humans are subjective creatures. Morals were made by that subjective creature and our perceptions of those morals are as fickle as our perceptions on fashion, music and movies. If there is somewhere a universal set of moralities independent from the human mind, well where is it? Neither he nor you provided anything that supports this statement. Why is it that slavery is wrong when for the majority of human history it was as common as taking a piss? Why is it that rape is wrong despite that taking the females you want is a regular occurrence in the animal kingdom? He decided to view that from the perspective of the individual and calls it an 'invasion of the well-being' while from the perspective of a species that moral might be preposterous.

The term "objectively" in most cases has to be read as "as objectively as possible", which implies that there is always a certain amount of subjectivity involved. If there is a real objective set of morals independent from human involvement, well then where is it?

Morality is not entirely a concoction of the of the human mind. The concept of morality is based in reality similarly to how the sciences(biology, chemistry, cosmology) are man-made "concoction" or system of models used to describe things based in reality. And morality does transcend human bounds due to the fact that it deals with physical beings in the physical realm who obey the laws of the universe. If the human race ceased to exist, the concept of morality would still remain true; rape, murder, or slavery would still be a violation of well-being, whether or not there's someone to enact it or react to it, similarly to how most concepts in biology would remain true if all living things would cease to exist.

I also don't see the lines you're trying to draw between your 2+2 = 5 scenario and my argument, but I'm probably the one at fault. I'm not sure if your addressing my first premise, or my entire argument.


If someone doesn't believe morality has to do with well-being, then they're talking about something else.

You are not even make any sense. You even just admitted that you are wrong and you are not aware of it. All the biological models, all the separation of elements, all of that is subjective. Who decided when to consider a new species a new species? Who decided that an element has to be defined as a new element? Men. Always men. Unlike moralities though even without all of that they exist. There doesn't have to be anyone to distinguish a lion from a tiger, as they are still there. There doesn't have to be anyone to call something iron and something else gold as even without that, what those names refer to are still there. But where are your morals? They have nothing, no substance, no existence other than in the minds of humans and a human is a subjective creature.

This is what I already explained earlier with the mathematical equation by saying that the numerical and alphabetical systems you might use are subjective, however no matter which ones you choose, it will remain so that the kilo feathers weighs the same as the kilo steel.

What is true, is that if humanity disappears, regardless of anyone knowing it or not, there was a species that believed it had the concept of morality but even that is pushing it as who then decides what morality exactly is? However that is something very different than what you say as many of those morals you are listing are time and place bound, thus subjective. Who decided that all those things you listed are moral/immoral? Men, just like there were times in the past they had completely different perceptions of those same things and possibly have different perceptions about them in the future. Or how else are you going to explain that if you would apply all those 'transcending' morals on the animal kingdom, they would be raping and murdering around the clock? "It's a violation of the well-being", when a lion kills/chases away the current alpha-male of a pride he often kills the existing cubs because as long as they are there, the females often will not allow him to mate with them. If a human would do that in the USA, he will end up on the electric chair. Lions do it and what do we do? At best changing the channel on your television. Did these lions now got violated in their well-being? We kill and eat an infinite amount of animals on a daily basis to survive. That is moral, but kill a human and it's not? You are already being highly selective here in your moralistic standards, so how is that being objective?

Yes morality is subjective as mankind is subjective. Unless of course if you involved a god or a similar existence.

And my point about the equation was that you are using invalid methods to back up your own claim. Let me put it differently, what you did was something like this: you want to prove that Usain Bolt is the fastest human runner on the planet and you do it by seeing how fast he can read a book. There is no causality between the two.

 

[Inmate]

By positing an immaterial transcendental mind which grounds morality in a semi-platonic sense - God.

Which begs me to run away I can already see there's no conclusion to this thread, especially with "God in the picture"

This "immaterial transcendental mind" is an argument-worthy subject on its own

 

[Marin]

Which begs me to run away I can already see there's no conclusion to this thread, especially with "God in the picture"

This "immaterial transcendental mind" is an argument-worthy subject on its own

Indeed it is, I said so myself, but the point is that there are alternate grounds for moral values which would make them mind-independant but also not strictly platonic.

 

[Hyun ryu]

Hmmm let me add a new point of view (which I myself don't necessarily agree with; am just curious about the opinion of the above erudite members):

Morality is neither subjective nor objective; it's collective.

Or, some moral values are subjective, some are objective.

 

[Marin]

I could've sworn this post wasn't here when I last replied to this thread. ~_~

People are divided about pretty much anything and that has been like that for thousands of years. Why? Amongst other because we are a subjective species. The fact that you start defining people here as belonging to different schools and whatnot is a striking example of that as that's being subjective and not even a little.

Put extra emphasis on "amongst others" because a far more plausible answer is that evidence points to more ways than just one. Some cases go better with one view while others go better with the opposing view. The reason why I brought this up is to dispell any illusion of a conceus which you post might have (intentionally or not) left. Big work is being done on both sides (realist/antirealist) so one is perfectly justified as I am to doubt your claim that "it's obvious". That was the reason why I mentioned the divide.

You also seem to haven't understand a thing of what I just said. I suggest you read my post again as the OP, an individual, decides that his set of personal moralities are objectively true while it's blatantly obvious he's making countless of subjective selections and decisions, using invalid comparisons and methods trying to prove his point.

And I said that if he is a platonist (as a naturalist moral realist probably is) those examples are perfectly valid, again pointing to the existence of a different framework to correct the false impression of conceus that your post (intentionally or not) gives away. This goes for most part of my post in reply to you, simply having a beef with people calling something obvious when it's far from that.

That you didn't understand what I said becomes quite clear on your reaction of me mentioning god. A god is omnipotent and all powerful, he can make you taste sound and smell light. He can turn reason into nonsense and turn left into right. So he can create an objective set of moralities, which makes this discussion pointless as first you would need to prove that god exists. Most religions also have that set of moralities: 10 commandments, 7 deadly sins...that kind of stuff.

I whole-heartedly disagree and counter with the claim that you don't really understand the concept of God I'm talking about. I'll again point out the danger in oversimplification which is quite apparent at this point - there is more than one God and the one I'm talking about as well as the one every philosopher of religion talks about is a far cry from the type of being you describe here. For one, the God I'm talking about is a logically possible one while yours isn't. Also, whether there are multiple different candidates for the grounding God (so to call it) is irrelevant (as is the entire, we disagree so no objectivity deal).

So it's fundamentally necessary for this discussion to assume he does not exist. But where is then your reasoning, your proof, your arguments? As neither you nor the OP provided anything even remotely of that order. You complain that I "should do more", but I did more than you and the OP combined and I said more than enough.

Not in the slightest. If you're looking for my arguments on God's existence I could give you plenty and derail the thread into something which it isn't (breaking the rules which you should stand for being an administrator...) or I can simply assume it for the sake of the argument as is my right. If however you're asking for a defense of moral realism, I don't really have any beyond the basic efficiency of moral intuition. It's something to be taken prima facie or atleast stay agnostic about. Though, ofcourse, if one is granted a framework where God exists this becomes a much stronger position via use of DCT (Divine Command Theory) and APBT (Anselmian Perfect Being Theology).

But as I said, I wasn't really arguing for any form of moral realism here, just pointing out the stuff in your post that is misleading (and dare I say quite arrogant and condescending). I'm generally uninterested in pure metaethics and tend to tackle the topic from a theological perspective.

It's simple humans are subjective creatures. Morals were made by that subjective creature and our perceptions of those morals are as fickle as our perceptions on fashion, music and movies. If there is somewhere a universal set of moralities independent from the human mind, well where is it? Neither he nor you provided anything that supports this statement. Why is it that slavery is wrong when for the majority of human history it was as common as taking a piss? Why is it that rape is wrong despite that taking the females you want is a regular occurrence in the animal kingdom? He decided to view that from the perspective of the individual and calls it an 'invasion of the well-being' while from the perspective of a species that moral might be preposterous.

I don't think you honestly believe what you said about morality. Taste in fashion and music is wildly colorful. I don't think anyone can take seriously the claim that one's taste when it comes to murder of children is of the same kind as one's taste in music.

Either way, you're making a category mistake in asking where an abstract entity is. Only concrete objects have spacio-temporal locations. The abstract exists timelessly and spacelessly. If a moral truth were to exist it would be an equivalent of a mathematical truth, a proposition with a logically necessary status equally existent regardless of whether we know it or not.

As for the animal deal, which you're pressing the second time so I guess I should mention it, the difference between us (homo sapiens) and the other life forms is that we have reason (I think you'll agree with me here). Reason makes us moral agents, capable of reflecting on our actions and going beyond the primitive instincts that bind the lower creatures.

Besides that, even if we were merely animals like any other and had no sensitivity for the moral status of things, you're again resting on the "there's disagreement so there's no objectivity" line of thinking. Simply because people disagree on something doesn't mean that something is illusory or fictional. To reason otherwise would mean to conflate moral epistemology (something being known) with ontology (something existing).

There's some sweet irony in a person who doesn't grant any special priviledge to human beings in regards to their ability to discern truths as they really are while at the same time insisting that for some truth to exist it must be discernable by the human beings who aren't particularly special. Feel free to correct me.

The term "objectively" in most cases has to be read as "as objectively as possible", which implies that there is always a certain amount of subjectivity involved. If there is a real objective set of morals independent from human involvement, well then where is it?

Should I make you irritated and say, perhaps the answer is God?

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

Hmmm let me add a new point of view (which I myself don't necessarily agree with; am just curious about the opinion of the above erudite members):

Morality is neither subjective nor objective; it's collective.

Or, some moral values are subjective, some are objective.

This makes sense. From what I know, morals were in cultures and such so I can't see it as objective, let alone subjective. (Latter might refer to dualism)

 

[3rd Raikage]

Not really, by its very being morality is completely subjective and there is zero doubt about that. Your examples are plainly wrong. Laws of nature and mathematical formulas belong into the world of exact sciences, which can be verified. Morality however belongs into the world of human sciences, which can never be completely objective and will always hold a subjective and changing character. The entire concept of morality is a concoction of the human mind and it doesn't exist anywhere else, which is very different form a natural law.

A kilogram of feathers will always weight the same as a kilogram of steel. If humanity disappears that still will be true. Of course you will need a human to realize and verify that and the usage of numerical and alphabetical systems will be needed if that human wants to visualize that and those of course are subjective. Nonetheless they will weigh the same. To be blunt this is 'written in stone'. The nature of morality however is different. If humanity disappears, morality disappears. It does not exist outside the human mind, ergo it's by its very nature subjective. It's something humans decided on themselves and if you don't believe that, I suggest you go talk to animals about their perceptions on things like murder, rape and morality as a whole.

Morality was made by humans. From the moment humans are involved, it always gains a subjective element.

If I would do the exact same thing as what you did, only in reverse, you would get something like this: recently a mathematical treaty was discovered in the British National Archives. After extensive literary, linguistic, paleographic etc. research it was concluded that the treaty was most likely written by prominent mathematician mister X. As the treaty says 2 + 2 = 5, henceforth 2 + 2 will now always equal 5 till further information arises. This makes no sense. That's how you do historical research, not mathematics. And you did something similar: applying an exact science onto a human one and that's plainly wrong.

The only way you could argument yourself out of here, is by claiming that outside the entire human race there's a set of moralities that's universally true regardless of what ever happens to mankind, which can only be true if you're going to involve religion into this as that's indeed what they often claim. Of course if you do that, well then this becomes a discussion of whether gods exist or not.

I suppose you haven't heard Sam Harris's take on this:



Basically what he is saying is that if we agree that human well being is something on which to base morality then indeed that is something science can measure. We can tell what's wrong from science as we can determine with greater accuracy what is harmful to well-being, be it psychological or biological well-being through Psychology, Neurobiology, Medicine, Biology etc. How is that not objective? It could get more complicated when it came to certain issues regarding what is morally correct (such as they can argue about the right move in areas such as economics even though they have facts like Sam points out), but that we could objectively see what would be the wrong option because we would have those facts as opposed to a religious doctrine, which doesn't have such knowledge (due to the time in which it was created) and can actually cause harm through practices such as homophobia, unequal rights etc. One might argue that morality is only subjective due to factors such as religious affiliation. Perhaps if every culture had the same reasoning, in that science can demonstrate what is least harmful and even suggest productive ways in which to better choose, there would be less subjectivity in moral reasoning.

There seems to be something intrinsic to the human animal, and I might argue, all intelligent social creatures, that compels us to empathy, to compassion. And intelligent, social creatures are the ONLY determiners of morality, because morality is delineating what is right and wrong in a social context. In other words, I don't think you can choose to have compassion or not. You can choose to act on this compulsion, or not, but you can't choose not to have it. I think this is what is at the core of secular humanism. The idea that morality is not a concept to be prescribed, but rather something we are trying to describe, that stems directly from our inner compulsions and our interactions with other beings. About this time is usually where I usually get counter-examples about psychopaths, serial killers, and nazis. I would argue that things like these are just statistical noise. What you see in human societal evolution is a very clear trend: the more choice a society is given, the more older, primal concerns like hunger are mitigated, the more humans tend to emphasize compassion and empathy within the current moral context

So if you agree that the scenario of the worst possible misery for humans, like Sam suggests, is the worst possible state for all of us, then you agree that every moral choice you make is moving away from that scenario. Meaning you/everyone are making choices to move towards well being. If human well being is the goal then you could argue that there is an objective optimal solution to attaining that goal, and that can (in principle) be ascertained by science