• 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.

This is objectively wrong because it usurps the goal to survive in peacefully with as little danger as possible. Morality it's most primal purpose is to keep us all alive. the objectivity stems from that.

That's YOUR goal. Why is this an objective goal? You keep shooting yourself in the foot and don't even know you're pulling the trigger.
 

Fail premises fail.

"1. A thing is good insofar as it is in accordance with its nature (thus a good car is one which works properly, or a good pencil is one which writes well).

2. Free human acts are matters of morality.

3. Therefore an act which is against human nature is morally wrong.

4. It is against man's social nature to intentionally kill others without sufficient cause (since if it were, there would be a contradiction, as if such were right, then by doing this right thing a man would deprive others of their ability to do it to him, which would violate the fundamental equality of humans).

5. The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.

Thus it is proved that the holocaust was immoral."

1. Sounds like an appeal to nature.
2. Eh, that's fine. I'd agree.
3. This is where I'd disagree.
4. Again, sounds like an appeal to nature.
5. Agreed but it doesn't matter.

Sounds like you drew your conclusion prematurely with faulty logic.
 
You are asserting that morality has to meet certain criteria, criteria that you subjectively determine. That's not objective.
No I'm not. I believe morality stems, innately, from the results of actions. From there right or wrongness of a moral can be determined.

No, society makes those determinations what is acceptable and not acceptable within a particular social context. That's not objective, it's subjective.
I don't agree. Though I am aware that it has happened, and does happen, in many societies, where things that are immoral are deemed moral, but I don't believe the morality of the immoral act was ever not immoral. Especially when these decrees ignore the suffering of many. It's just cruel negligence of an indoctrinated majority that are turning a blind eye to the actual real consequences of a said immoral action.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
I'm confident in my argument for objective morality.
 
That's YOUR goal. Why is this an objective goal? You keep shooting yourself in the foot and don't even know you're pulling the trigger.

What other goal would there be? Scientifically survival is a primal motivation for all our actions at the most primal level.
 
No I'm not. I believe morality stems, innately, from the results of actions. From there right or wrongness of a moral can be determined.

Which is an assertion, not a demonstration. How can you determine the rightness or wrongness of an action without applying any of your own personal views, opinions or beliefs to it?

I don't agree. Though I am aware that it has happened, and does happen, in many societies, where things that are immoral are deemed moral, but I don't believe the morality of the immoral act was ever not immoral. Especially when these decrees ignore the suffering of many. It's just cruel negligence of an indoctrinate majority that are turning a blind eye to the actual real consequences of a said immoral action.

You still haven't demonstrated any of that, just asserted it. There is a difference, you know.

I'm confident in my argument for objective morality.

The insane are confident in their own sanity too, that doesn't mean much.
 
No it's more indication that this is an argument that I have entirely formed in my head without spending much time actually studying the topic. And I gungholey made this topic in a forum full of well read users. I'm not counting my self out by any means but I can admit that I may not be articulate enough to argue my points successfully.

Well yeah. That's another possibility

I don't believe I am. I'm pretty sure wolves, lions, gorillas, and other pack animals have a strict hierarchy. In this understanding the individuals within these packs make decision within the confines of the pack rules. Usually when a member of a pack is killed or exiled it is because the member has done something or is unfortunately the victim of circumstances that the pack believes is out of line.

You are. They aren't strict hierarchies. They are subject to change at any time. And the belief that one member of a pack is dominant over another at all times is also untrue. In some circumstances, one member will be dominant over another. In other circumstances, another member will be dominant over the one. Even the term "pack leader" does not denote a member that always dominates the other. It merely refers to the member which has preference (ie dominance) when it comes to food and mating.

A wounded lioness may be eaten because she is weak and worthless, and will otherwise serve no purpose for the pack. Etc. Etc.

Or a healthy lion may be killed during play that turns serious.

It happens.



I don't approach morality from such an abstract perspective. My understanding of how to discern morality is more, I don't know, scientific in my approach?
If the point of life, scientifically, is to survive and live - then morals help keep us in line with that. Morals govern a very complex system of human behavior. What may at first glance seem small and trivial, such as stealing from on homeless man, can set a dangerous precedence that can create disharmony and thus chaos. It also puts the perpetrator in a worse of position in the eyes of others. The more unruly and cruel one seems the more alienated and rejected he becomes. This in turn makes life harder for that individual.

There is no point of life, and even if there is, the life and survival of *human* life is not it.

Your focus on humans, as if they are the reason for life, is self-serving which comes across as being motivated by your own preferences (IOW, subjective)

This is objectively wrong because it usurps the goal to survive in peacefully with as little danger as possible. Morality it's most primal purpose is to keep us all alive. the objectivity stems from that.

I could argue that the existence of humans threatens all the life on this planet. If the survival of life is the point, then maybe it would be better off if humans were not around. No other species of life threatens all the others the way humans do.
 
What other goal would there be? Scientifically survival is a primal motivation for all our actions at the most primal level.

Right up until you added your own twist: "peacefully with as little danger as possible". Evolution and nature are not peaceful at all and wanting survival doesn't guarantee that you actually get it. You are still totally blinded by your desires.
 
What other goal would there be? Scientifically survival is a primal motivation for all our actions at the most primal level.

Actually, it's the survival of our genes that's the primal motivation, and not just for humans. For all forms of life.
 
Which is an assertion, not a demonstration. How can you determine the rightness or wrongness of an action without applying any of your own personal views, opinions or beliefs to it?
By determining if the action acts against stable society. Then determining if a stable or unstable society is better for survival. Then determining if survival is important.
This is all objective.


You still haven't demonstrated any of that, just asserted it. There is a difference, you know.
Well all throughout history flippant disregard for human rights have never ended well. And even today, with negligence of certain groups persisting we can see that it causes unrest, anger, violence, revolutions, etc. People die when neglect persists unchecked.
The insane are confident in their own sanity too, that doesn't mean much.
I'm insane because I disagree with you on whether morality is objective or no? I think you taking the debate a little too personally. I think it's possible for us both to be confident in our arguments and it's possibly for you to get through this discussion without being a mean b*tch. =]
 
By determining if the action acts against stable society. Then determining if a stable or unstable society is better for survival. Then determining if survival is important. This is all objective.

But now you're not talking about objectivity, you're talking about a specific goal that YOU have determined, which is entirely subjective. You need to visit a dictionary.
 
Actually, it's the survival of our genes that's the primal motivation, and not just for humans. For all forms of life.

And, in fact, biological survival not only doesn't require the entirety of a species, it only requires that the best suited for survival actually breed. It says nothing about those individual organisms surviving past the time they've passed on their genes.
 
Right up until you added your own twist: "peacefully with as little danger as possible". Evolution and nature are not peaceful at all and wanting survival doesn't guarantee that you actually get it. You are still totally blinded by your desires.

Well this "peacefully with as little danger as possible" facilitates are more optimal living environment. It's the rational choice. It's the choice that any creature invested in it's survival would choose.
 
Well this "peacefully with as little danger as possible" facilitates are more optimal living environment. It's the rational choice. It's the choice that any creature invested in it's survival would choose.

Optimal according to who? You? SUBJECTIVE!

Come on, stop being ridiculous.
 
You are. They aren't strict hierarchies. They are subject to change at any time. And the belief that one member of a pack is dominant over another at all times is also untrue. In some circumstances, one member will be dominant over another. In other circumstances, another member will be dominant over the one. Even the term "pack leader" does not denote a member that always dominates the other. It merely refers to the member which has preference (ie dominance) when it comes to food and mating.

Wolf Social Structure - Wolf Facts and Information



Or a healthy lion may be killed during play that turns serious.

It happens.

Yeah it does happen. It happens with humans too, but we still have an order. And sources disagree with you.

Lion social behavior of lions





There is no point of life, and even if there is, the life and survival of *human* life is not it.
I'm not religious. Nor have I claimed there is an abstract point to life. However surviving is a motivation for us all and cultivating and environment, a community, that promotes optimal living conditions is, objectively, a rational choice.

Your focus on humans, as if they are the reason for life, is self-serving which comes across as being motivated by your own preferences (IOW, subjective)
I don't believe so. It is natural for a species to act in the interests of it's own species. Social ones at least. During floods ants will raft to keep each other alive. If it exists in all social animals then there must be an evolutionary reason for our desire to make decisions that best fit us all.



I could argue that the existence of humans threatens all the life on this planet. If the survival of life is the point, then maybe it would be better off if humans were not around. No other species of life threatens all the others the way humans do.
You could. I think it's because our actions towards this world are immoral. And as read my own responses I almost sound religious, but I'm not.Our actions are immoral in the sense that we are destroying the only place we have to live and thus orchestrating our own demise.
 
Optimal according to who? You? SUBJECTIVE!

Come on, stop being ridiculous.

op·ti·mal
ˈäptəməl/Submit
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.

This can be determined objectively.
 
Fail premises fail.

"1. A thing is good insofar as it is in accordance with its nature (thus a good car is one which works properly, or a good pencil is one which writes well).

2. Free human acts are matters of morality.

3. Therefore an act which is against human nature is morally wrong.

4. It is against man's social nature to intentionally kill others without sufficient cause (since if it were, there would be a contradiction, as if such were right, then by doing this right thing a man would deprive others of their ability to do it to him, which would violate the fundamental equality of humans).

5. The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.

Thus it is proved that the holocaust was immoral."

1. Sounds like an appeal to nature.
2. Eh, that's fine. I'd agree.
3. This is where I'd disagree.
4. Again, sounds like an appeal to nature.
5. Agreed but it doesn't matter.

Sounds like you drew your conclusion prematurely with faulty logic.

1. Is it not correct?
2. Ok
3. Goes to 1
4. Again, goes to 1
5. Ok

Q.E.D.
 
Well this "peacefully with as little danger as possible" facilitates are more optimal living environment. It's the rational choice. It's the choice that any creature invested in it's survival would choose.

A more optimal living environment for whom?

Certainly not for the dodo birds, or any of the other species we've caused to go extinct
 
But now you're not talking about objectivity, you're talking about a specific goal that YOU have determined, which is entirely subjective. You need to visit a dictionary.

Nothing I have said is based off of an arbitrary opinion of mine. The most basic goal of any living organism is to survive. That's why damn near all creatures on this planet, including humans, have built in involuntary fight or flight reactions to danger. So with that in mind anything that promotes survival of our species as a whole, because we have always been social animals, is moral and anything that facilitates the usurping of society, small or big, is wrong.

We determine this by judging each action within the context in which it is performed.

Killing toddler unprovoked no rational reason is always morally wrong. Simply saying well I think it's not , is a worthless counter argument.
 
Last edited:
A more optimal living environment for whom?

Certainly not for the dodo birds, or any of the other species we've caused to go extinct

For humans. And I don't understand why you think bringing up those things change my argument. Yes humans are currently acting against our own survival by tampering with the ecosystem. We are also becoming more aware and trying to combat the bad apples in our pack.
 
1. Is it not correct?
2. Ok
3. Goes to 1
4. Again, goes to 1
5. Ok

Q.E.D.

1. Opinion (subjective)
2. Okay
3. No it doesn't. Why is it morally wrong? Again, sounds like an opinion (subjective)
4. Lots of fallacious premises here, as well.
5. I spoke too soon. "Without sufficient cause" seems rather subjective. Sure, I'd agree with that (as would many others) but the Nazis committing those acts of violence might not. This, again, makes it subjective.

Q.E.D., you've simply showed more subjective morality.
 
1. Opinion (subjective)
2. Okay
3. No it doesn't. Why is it morally wrong? Again, sounds like an opinion (subjective)
4. Lots of fallacious premises here, as well.
5. I spoke too soon. "Without sufficient cause" seems rather subjective. Sure, I'd agree with that (as would many others) but the Nazis committing those acts of violence might not. This, again, makes it subjective.

Q.E.D., you've simply showed more subjective morality.

1. Just claiming something is an opinion doesn't suffice as a refutation.
3. and 4. They both follow from 1
5. That makes your argument subjective. My argument on the other hand, is not dependent on anyone's feelings.
 
Wolf Social Structure - Wolf Facts and Information





Yeah it does happen. It happens with humans too, but we still have an order. And sources disagree with you.

Lion social behavior of lions

Your "sources" are blogs that do not link to any credible science sources.

Dominance and Dog Training
http://www.4pawsu.com/alphawolf.pdf

note the links and citations to scientists and scientific paper, and compare that to the lack of those in the links you posted.

I'm not religious. Nor have I claimed there is an abstract point to life. However surviving is a motivation for us all and cultivating and environment, a community, that promotes optimal living conditions is, objectively, a rational choice.

We aren't discussing if wanting to live and survive is rational. We're talking about whether morality is objective and whether wanting to live and survive is objectively good.


I don't believe so. It is natural for a species to act in the interests of it's own species. Social ones at least. During floods ants will raft to keep each other alive. If it exists in all social animals then there must be an evolutionary reason for our desire to make decisions that best fit us all.

Yes, it is natural to act in one's own interests and that is the result of evolution. However, that does not address the question of whether it is objectively good for humans to live and survive.

And BTW, the reason why evolution has bred the desire to live into us is for one reason, and one reason alone - to increase the frequency of our genes. That is the sole motivating force behind evolution, and there's nothing special about human DNA from the point of view of evolution. Therefore, there is nothing inherently or objectively good from the point of view of evolution.



You could. I think it's because our actions towards this world are immoral. And as read my own responses I almost sound religious, but I'm not.Our actions are immoral in the sense that we are destroying the only place we have to live and thus orchestrating our own demise.

If our actions are immoral, and are destroying planet (and orchestrating the demise of all life, not just our own) then what is objectively good about anything that allows us to survive (and continue to destroy the planet)?
 
Rogue Wink* Wink* :lol:
I believe Morality is Objective.

Many poster ask for proof of this. Typically these discussions start with a bait and switch.
Subjective Moralist will say - "Ok, you believe morality is objective? So is stealing wrong?"
The objective Moralist will say - "yes"
And then the SM will say - "What about a starving men and the brink of death standing before an unattended fruit stand?"
And then they segue into a discussion on how this proves subjective morality.

I don't believe this proves subjective morality, what I believe is it demonstrates a false set up for what morality encompasses. The notion that objective morality is absolute on any given action is false, Objective morality is nuanced and varies objectively not upon actions but upon circumstances.

So, no, Stealing is not Absolutely morally wrong, when dissected though, there are circumstances where stealing is absolutely, from an intellectually honest stand point, always wrong and always ok. The details matter.

For instance - I am a well to do man. I can afford a home, clothes, and food and currently possess a surplus of all of those things. If I come across a homeless man who has fallen asleep with a big mac in his lap and I take it. I believe there is never any rational explanation for why that action would possibly be morally permissible. So anyone who within that same context repeated my action will always be morally wrong.

However - If I am a starving homeless man and I have a starving daughter and a visibly wealthy individual has left his van open with groceries unattended and I choose to take their peanut butter, loaf of bread, and gallon of water. I have acted morally right, for the benefit of my own life, which I believe should be fought for at all cost, and that of my child. I believe in this context, objectively, anyone repeating this action is in the right.

Another example.

I am in the kitchen with a stranger who is unarmed, friendly, harmless, and otherwise simply not a threat. Suddenly I pick up a knife and kill the stranger for no reason other than joy. In this scenario, objectively, I am always morally wrong. I, again, do not believe there is any intellectually honest way to rationalize my actions in that context.

Now - The stranger is pointing a gun at me. And I manage to kill them with knife, don't ask how. I have again murdered the stranger, however, objectively, I have acted in a morally right way. I protected my life and didn't simply die. I had a right to do so and it was rational. This, I believe, is objectively morally right.

IN nutshell objective morality is based off of action and consequence and both of those are consistent in reality. It is not simply based of off broad definitions in which any involvement of that action is always wrong or always right.

Now a counter argument may be, well someone out there may not find killing someone for no reason wrong. I don't believe that is relevant though. If we approach this with logic and rational in mind, regardless of what in psycho may believe - we can assess the action and the consequence and come to a consistent consensus. Ruthless unprovoked killing can not be defended in an intellectual discussion it is always wrong, it is only when we tweak the circumstances do things change and they change objectively.

so am I wrong or am I right?

Theres no objective morality, basic logic, history and facts make it that way.
It factually doesn't exist and is subjective by nature, theres actually nothing out there that to even suggest theres objective morality.
 
1. Just claiming something is an opinion doesn't suffice as a refutation.
3. and 4. They both follow from 1
5. That makes your argument subjective. My argument on the other hand, is not dependent on anyone's feelings.

1. When you're claiming objectivity, it refutes that claim and shows it to be subjective.
3. Why is it wrong, Paleo?
4. Fallacies. We'll address them later when we move past 1.
5. Your argument is based on feelings. "Without sufficient cause" is your feeling. Again, subjective.
 
For humans. And I don't understand why you think bringing up those things change my argument. Yes humans are currently acting against our own survival by tampering with the ecosystem. We are also becoming more aware and trying to combat the bad apples in our pack.

Yes, for humans....and for nothing else.

And maybe, humans are not good for humans, or for any other form of life. While you may claim that we're becoming more aware and combating the "bad apples", there is a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

Basically, you are "begging the question". You claim that you can prove that there is such a thing as an "objective good" by claiming that the survival of humans is an "objective good".

Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.[1]
The term "begging the question" originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of Latin petitio principii "assuming the initial point".[2] In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" is sometimes used to mean "to raise the question" (as in "This begs the question of whether...") or "to dodge the question".[2]

Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) [of] failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none of these. [...] If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue.... egging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself...either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical.
—Aristotle, Hugh Tredennick (trans.) Prior Analytics


That human life is an objective good is just as much an "unknown" as the existence of objective good is.

When you boil it down, your argument is "Objective good must exist because the survival of humans is an objective good"
 
Back
Top Bottom