• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

objective morality

Does objective morality exist?

  • Total voters
    17
mpg

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We all know that subjective morality exists, but what about objective morality? Does it exist? In what form? Can the laws of a particular society make an act moral or immoral? Is there some sort of universal truth, such as the laws of God or the laws of nature? Is there any morality aside from the opinions of individuals?

I already asked a similar question in the poll subforum, but I messed it up by not making a distinction between subjective and objective morality.
 
yes, natural law
 
I'll repost mine from the previous thread:

"Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?

Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.

Susan: So we can believe the big ones?

Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.

Susan: They're not the same at all.

Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged."

That about sums it up.
 
mpg said:
I believe in objective morality, but I don't believe in God.
Click to expand...

What's objectively moral about it? Gravity is a natural law.
 
mpg said:
I don't know how I could make my feelings more clear.
Click to expand...

So you're saying gravity is objectively moral? Gravity is a natural law, after all.
 
mpg said:
We all know that subjective morality exists, but what about objective morality? Does it exist? In what form? Can the laws of a particular society make an act moral or immoral? Is there some sort of universal truth, such as the laws of God or the laws of nature? Is there any morality aside from the opinions of individuals?

I already asked a similar question in the poll subforum, but I messed it up by not making a distinction between subjective and objective morality.
Click to expand...

The only law provided by nature is "survival of the fittest". All other values that create civilization came from the subjective ideals of humans. The first city states arising in human history were based around development of agriculture and codified laws. The laws were to recognize a set rules of conduct to ensure domestic tranquility and productivity. So morals are basically a concept created by humans to control our activities between each other, so as not to create chaos, animosity and injustice.
 
Humans are fairly consistent biological creatures. We don't like to suffer. We also value community and cooperation. Morality is, in essence, "don't treat people in ways you don't want them to treat you." Morality is not causing pain, suffering, and fear, and sometimes actively working to reduce those. That's it. That's all there is to it. It's part of our physical makeup.
 
Cephus said:
No one ever can, nor can they provide evidence for it's existence. It's faith, no different from religion.
Click to expand...

Below is all OPINION and subject to ALL criticism and/or CHANGE at any time.

Law simply identifies the consequences of actions. Laws can be man-made or natural according to the consequences. Man-made laws are subject to change according to a human authority and have absolutely no bearing on natural law. Natural law is ALWAYS superior to man-made law. In regard to the relationship of humans to natural law, one may freely choose an action, but they are not free to choose the natural consequences that go along with that action. For example, one may jump higher and higher but is still subject to the natural law of gravity. Even if one were to jump high enough to escape the gravity of one system, that one is still subject to gravity as it is a natural property of anything with mass and volume. Now the natural consequences of any action may be delayed (e.g. one may take longer to come down after jumping or landing somewhere else), but in all things, equilibrium is sought and the final outcome is unchanged. Man may, in his utter foolishness, make a law that says that gravity does not exist, but that would be of no more effect than me wishing to be a bird.

The law of sin and death (what I think is violation of natural law in regard to the existence of others) is no more able to be altered than the law of gravity unless the nature of humanity changes. For instance, me hoarding all food when you have none would likely result in your death OR action on your part to take it from me which is going to result in the death of one or many or all of us. Consequences of actions that result in death may be temporarily suspended, but ultimately, death results. Morals are behavioral limits with regard to the existence of humans within society, and discerned according to the law of sin and death as, more or less, outlined above. Objective morality defined in that sense, would be limits on behaviors that violate natural law as it relates to humanity and keeps us from transgressing the law of sin and death.
 
Last edited:
jwzg said:
Below is all OPINION and subject to ALL criticism and/or CHANGE at any time.

Law simply identifies the consequences of actions. Laws can be man-made or natural according to the consequences. Man-made laws are subject to change according to a human authority and have absolutely no bearing on natural law. Natural law is ALWAYS superior to man-made law. In regard to the relationship of humans to natural law, one may freely choose an action, but they are not free to choose the natural consequences that go along with that action. For example, one may jump higher and higher but is still subject to the natural law of gravity. Even if one were to jump high enough to escape the gravity of one system, that one is still subject to gravity as it is a natural property of anything with mass and volume. Now the natural consequences of any action may be delayed (e.g. one may take longer to come down after jumping or landing somewhere else), but in all things, equilibrium is sought and the final outcome is unchanged. Man may, in his utter foolishness, make a law that says that gravity does not exist, but that would be of no more effect than me wishing to be a bird.

The law of sin and death (what I think is violation of natural law in regard to the existence of others) is no more able to be altered than the law of gravity unless the nature of humanity changes. For instance, me hoarding all food when you have none would likely result in your death OR action on your part to take it from me which is going to result in the death of one or many or all of us. Consequences of actions that result in death may be temporarily suspended, but ultimately, death results. Morals are behavioral limits with regard to the existence of humans within society, and discerned according to the law of sin and death as, more or less, outlined above. Objective morality defined in that sense, would be limits on behaviors that violate natural law as it relates to humanity and keeps us from transgressing the law of sin and death.
Click to expand...

Yes, everything you posted is pure opinion and while you're welcome to your own opinions, you are not welcome to your own facts. It's facts I'm seeking, not opinions. You make several statements in your piece that make claims about objective reality, yet those claims cannot be justified by evidence. That's the problem with natural law, no matter how much you personally might find the idea valuable, you cannot demonstrate that it's any more than an opinion.

Reality is not based on opinions.
 
Cephus said:
Yes, everything you posted is pure opinion and while you're welcome to your own opinions, you are not welcome to your own facts. It's facts I'm seeking, not opinions. You make several statements in your piece that make claims about objective reality, yet those claims cannot be justified by evidence. That's the problem with natural law, no matter how much you personally might find the idea valuable, you cannot demonstrate that it's any more than an opinion.

Reality is not based on opinions.
Click to expand...

How about some specific feedback. Law which is subject to change is not law at all.
 
Last edited:
jwzg said:
How about some specific feedback. Law which is subject to change is not law at all.
Click to expand...

Objective morality does not exist. I'd go into detail but several other posters have explained why.

Is it not satisfactory to have subjective morality? Our ability to create moral values is what makes us human. It's what millions of years of evolution has granted us.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Objective morality does not exist. I'd go into detail but several other posters have explained why.

Is it not satisfactory to have subjective morality? Our ability to create moral values is what makes us human. It's what millions of years of evolution has granted us.
Click to expand...

So define the terms "moral" and "law", so we can all start on the same page.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Yes, everything you posted is pure opinion and while you're welcome to your own opinions, you are not welcome to your own facts. It's facts I'm seeking, not opinions. You make several statements in your piece that make claims about objective reality, yet those claims cannot be justified by evidence. That's the problem with natural law, no matter how much you personally might find the idea valuable, you cannot demonstrate that it's any more than an opinion.

Reality is not based on opinions.
Click to expand...

That's the problem when seeking moral "facts" - they are incredibly hard to find. They depend on many things and, inherently, appear to be subjective. The absence of overreaching moral "facts" is evidence there's no objective morality.
 
jwzg said:
So define the terms "moral" and "law", so we can all start on the same page.
Click to expand...

"Moral" as defined by me - a preference (or lack thereof) to an action

"Law (philosophy)" as defined by me - social standards of morals that may (or may not) be agreed upon by all
 
mpg said:
We all know that subjective morality exists, but what about objective morality? Does it exist? In what form? Can the laws of a particular society make an act moral or immoral? Is there some sort of universal truth, such as the laws of God or the laws of nature? Is there any morality aside from the opinions of individuals?

I already asked a similar question in the poll subforum, but I messed it up by not making a distinction between subjective and objective morality.
Click to expand...

In my opinion no, there is no objective morality. All morality is subjective. Laws do not make acts moral or immoral, but rather they show which acts the society that instituted them believes to be moral or immoral.
 
zgholdsmith23 said:
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy
Click to expand...
Sure, right after Death shows us an atom of gravity. Death is a fool, stick to killing or whatever you do death.

zgoldsmith23 said:
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Death, justice, mercy, duty, these are aspects of reality. They are no more lies than the sun in the sky. You're familiar with Game theory?

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By analyzing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore, a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely self-interested reasons first.
Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.
Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (note that a "nice" strategy can never score more than the opponent).
Click to expand...
==========================================================

Now, that they are real, relevant, etc., should not be questioned. Whether or not the term "objective" is defined adequately, and is then appropriate to describe them with, may be what's in question.

mpg said:
Is there any morality aside from the opinions of individuals
Click to expand...
Are the above characteristics of winning strategy opinion? They do not appear to be.
 
Last edited:
All laws exist as "if...then..." propositions. If one is human, they will die. That is a law that no one has been able to break ;). Also, "an object will accelerate in the same direction and proportional to the magnitude of the force applied to it". No one has been able to break that law either. That's why they are called laws. I really don't give a damn about what society agrees upon, as society changes like the wind. Laws are reflective of truth (the way things are). If something changes, then it really wasn't that way to start with.

The fact that all humans agree on the existence of gravity does not change the fact that gravity exists apart from that agreement. Death is irreversible...just because humans agree that it does not, doesn't nullify it.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Sure, right after Death shows us an atom of gravity. Death is a fool, stick to killing or whatever you do death.
Click to expand...

The graviton is in the works. ;)

Death, justice, mercy, duty, these are aspects of reality.
Click to expand...

They may all be aspects of your reality but certainly not in mine. Death certainly is. That's about it. The other three, I pay no heed.

You're familiar with Game theory?
Click to expand...

I don't have a postdoctoral understanding of it if that's what you're asking.

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By analyzing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore, a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely self-interested reasons first.
Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.
Forgiving
Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (note that a "nice" strategy can never score more than the opponent).

==========================================================

Now, that they are real, relevant, etc., should not be questioned. Whether or not the term "objective" is defined adequately, and is then appropriate to describe them with, may be what's in question.
Click to expand...

There in lies the problem. Are they objective? Are they even common? Do people inherently agree on the definitions and conditions? Axelrod falsely concludes only 2 potential options as well. Even in that scenario of Axelrod's, humans would want to score "more" than their opponent, I'd hypothesize. Price showed that selfishness is an evolutionary virtue even under the guise of altruism - W∆Z after all. Altruistic genes can spread even in spite of one's own suffering for the evolutionary gain.
 
Cephus said:
Which is not demonstrable.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to prove that I'm right. This is about core values. Some people believe in an eye for an eye, and some people believe that two wrongs don't make a right. Neither side can show any evidence to support their opinion. It's all about how you feel in your heart.
 
Cephus said:
It's facts I'm seeking, not opinions.
Click to expand...
You're in the wrong thread. If we were debating whether Megan Fox or Mila Kunis is more attractive, would you expect people to supply facts to support their opinions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom