• 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!

Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222:829]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
The issue is that y'all keep discussing moral epistemology while I am trying to discuss moral ontology... So you say that murder/rape/stealing/multilating little girls' genitalia and slowly torturing them to death are all morally wrong actions... WHY? What makes those actions wrong?

Now is when the subjective moralist responds by saying "because those actions cause unnecessary suffering/pain, and that is wrong" ... But that isn't answering the question (what is the ontological grounding of morality?); that is just appealing to another moral value (any X that causes unnecessary suffering is wrong). But one can’t explain what makes moral values “moral” by simply citing another moral value. It's very circular and doesn't address/answer the question...

The moral value that it is wrong to unnecessarily cause harm needs to be grounded ontologically in the same way that the moral value of it being wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. etc. needs to be grounded ontologically. Since it can still be asked what makes it wrong to cause unnecessary harm, the ontological grounding for morality must go deeper than that.

So, to all the atheists/agnostics/etc. in this thread, I ask this question... What makes it wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on others?
Click to expand...

do you like hurting others is there anything you dont like about it being generally considered ok to hurt others?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

lefty louie said:
I'm certainly not opposed to there being a god(s), also not against the idea there is no god. But to say one cannot be moral without a god is about as dumb as I can imagine.

I know a few atheists, none of them are any less moral then anyone else I know.
Click to expand...

They're not moral in God's eyes.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." - Romans 3:23

As for atheists being moral, they can be moral according to mankind, but unless they're embracing Biblical values, they have no objective basis for their morality. It's purely subjective.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Logicman said:
They're not moral in God's eyes.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." - Romans 3:23

As for atheists being moral, they can be moral according to mankind, but unless they're embracing Biblical values, they have no objective basis for their morality. It's purely subjective.
Click to expand...

And as it has been pointed out, all morality is subjectve. Your bible does not contain all the moral writings in history. Which by the way, were all written by subjective human beings.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
Moral duty: Do not steal. Now, if someone were attempting to beat you with a baseball bat, and you stole it away from him, it would be okay to steal under that circumstance (self defense). If someone was away from their home and you stole from them for the fun of it, it would not be okay to steal under that circumstance. But, like I said, that's not to say that there is no objective moral duty to fulfill (don't steal).
Click to expand...
Great now you understand there is a lot of gray. But that is your moral opinion on this situation. For it to be objectively true you would have to show why it is objectively true not just your opinion. Now can you steal something from someone who stole? Can you steal to feed yourself ? Another? etc. Then you must explain why in every single case that ever comes up and it cannot be based upon your opinions it must have an objective measurement that proves it to be moral or immoral. And that is just with theft, now you have to do that with every other moral dilemma as well.


Okay, that's what I thought you meant, but it's still a conglomeration of many different "societies". I get your point, and think that it would be closer to being true as you keep getting to a more "localized" society, such as "city" or "rural", as opposed to the USA as a whole. But like I said before, I don't think it's necessarily the morals themselves which differ between societies, but rather the epistemology of the morals. Take oppressive slavery for example. People historically found it to be morally acceptable to oppressively enslave "sub-human" people, but morally objectionable to oppressively enslave "human people". In other words, they all had the same morality that "oppressive slavery of other humans is wrong", but the epistemological change came as a result of no longer recognizing the classification of particular people as "sub-humans". I think this is where you are seeing a "difference between societies" when there really isn't a core difference when it comes to the moral duty itself (don't oppressively enslave other people). It seems like you are recognizing an epistemological change, not an ontological change.
Click to expand...
Sorry that is just false. You seem to be looking how people viewed slavery in the USA. Slavery existed long before the USA and unfortunately still exists today. People were sometimes considered subhuman but often they were not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
https://slaveryinjustice.wordpress.com/slavery-in-ancient-aztec-mayan-and-inca/
Mind you even if your claim was true it would show that the morals of those who considered slaves to be sub human to be different than our and thus subjective as well.


I think that falls under the psycho(socio)path category... And your further examples here get back to my above discussion where the epistemology is affected, but not the ontology. The moral ontology is the same (don't do these things) but the epistemology changes (don't do these things to "equals" [vs] don't do these things to "anyone"). Either way, the ontological "don't" is still there, telling people how they objectively ought to behave.
Click to expand...
Your argument is that entire civilizations were psychopaths?
and You need to apply the reverse of the bolded part to your "already been shown to be subjective" claim,
And once again, an epistemological viewpoint change is irrelevant to moral ontology.
Click to expand...
Why reverse it your claim is that objective mortality exists you have failed to even come close to proving that point., I have shown that morality is subjective as it changes depending on what society/person is looking at it in different places/times. That's is the definition of something being subjective. You cant get to objective morality from subjective views which is what you are trying and failing to do,.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Quag said:
Great now you understand there is a lot of gray.
Click to expand...
I've never denied that there can be a lot of "gray area" when it comes to understanding morality in every conceivable situation. But that is discussing moral EPISTEMOLOGY, which is completely irrelevant to my discussion of moral ONTOLOGY, which is the part that a lot of respondents in this thread can't seem to grasp. I'm not discussing "how we know something to be true"; I'm discussing "what makes it true, as in, why morality exists in the first place, and what is it grounded in to make it true".

Quag said:
But that is your moral opinion on this situation. For it to be objectively true you would have to show why it is objectively true not just your opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm figuring out what's going on here, and it's that you are stuck on the epistemological angle while I'm trying to get at the ontological angle. Moral epistemology can be debated and can be rather subjective; We both agree on that. That's what you are asserting, and I agree with that, but any system that is grounded on principles created by man cannot transcend man because it has no objective value. This means that, under subjective morality, there are no moral truths. Sure, one can believe that is the case, but that belief requires one to take the position that very absurd behaviors (such as mutilating little girls' genitalia and slowly/painfully torturing them to death) are not truly morally wrong behaviors because it would be nothing more than a subjective belief of a person (or group of people). Is this what you believe?

Quag said:
Now can you steal something from someone who stole? Can you steal to feed yourself ? Another? etc.
Click to expand...
More irrelevant epistemology talk...

Quag said:
Then you must explain why in every single case that ever comes up and it cannot be based upon your opinions it must have an objective measurement that proves it to be moral or immoral. And that is just with theft, now you have to do that with every other moral dilemma as well.
Click to expand...
No, I don't have to explain "every single case"... That's, once again, the moral epistemology discussion; I'm discussing moral ontology. I only have to explain "don't steal for the fun of it", and that is an objectively immoral action; it is a moral truth that transcends mankind.

Quag said:
Sorry that is just false. You seem to be looking how people viewed slavery in the USA. Slavery existed long before the USA and unfortunately still exists today. People were sometimes considered subhuman but often they were not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
https://slaveryinjustice.wordpress.com/slavery-in-ancient-aztec-mayan-and-inca/
Mind you even if your claim was true it would show that the morals of those who considered slaves to be sub human to be different than our and thus subjective as well.
Click to expand...
And, as a result of my response, I once again got you to make a "you ought not" claim, as if the wrongness of oppressive slavery is a moral truth. Under the worldview that you advocate for, the wrongness of oppressive slavery can only be a matter of opinion; it doesn't transcend mankind. If that wrongness transcends mankind, then there must be a transcendent personal moral agent that was the "lawgiver".

Quag said:
Your argument is that entire civilizations were psychopaths?
Click to expand...
Sure...

Quag said:
Why reverse it your claim is that objective mortality exists you have failed to even come close to proving that point., I have shown that morality is subjective as it changes depending on what society/person is looking at it in different places/times. That's is the definition of something being subjective. You cant get to objective morality from subjective views which is what you are trying and failing to do,.
Click to expand...
You've shown that moral EPISTEMOLOGY can be subjective; you haven't said a word regarding moral ontology... You can't get "good and evil" without the existence of God. Sure, you could tack those words onto various actions, but since "man-made morality" is completely subjective, those words would ultimately hold no meaning. If God does not exist, there is no such thing as “goodness” at all. As an individual, or as a culture, we might prefer to help an old lady cross the street as opposed to mowing her down with our car, but neither behavior is morally superior to the other. All human acts would just be "molecules in motion", and neither molecules nor motion come in “good” and “bad” varieties. Morality is not a quality of matter (physical), but of mind (spiritual).
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

faithful_servant said:
I never made any claims about "factual". What I said was "external to oneself". A subjective moral standard is an oxymoron. If you can change your standard, then you have no standard. It is ONLY when your standard is an externally controlled one, that it can truly be called a moral standard. If I choose to follow a standard set by you that states that I can only wear black socks, then while I can violate that standard, I can't change it. I can choose which standard I follow, but if I'm the one setting the standard, then I have no standard, since today I may wear white socks and be perfectly moral in my standard and tomorrow wear blue socks and still be perfectly moral. Such a path is that of having NO moral standard whatsoever. As a society, we are subject to the same issue. As long as it's us who are deciding what the moral standard is, we have no true standard, since what is moral today can become immoral tomorrow. So an moral standard based on what the people who are following it want is no moral standard at all. It's simply a way to make that society feel good about what it is doing. Not to Godwin this subject, but most Nazi era Germans thought that taking away the Jews belongings and homes was a moral act. 20 years prior, it would have been considered reprehensible. The act itself didn't change, but they chose a different standard to follow after. Had they stuck to an external standard, they may have still done what they did, but it would been an immoral act instead of a moral one, since the standard of what was moral was not within their control (subjective).
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT post (I especially like your last sentence) which does a good job at simplifying why subjective morality isn't actually following any moral standard at all. In order for morality to hold meaning and be followed, it needs to exist externally.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

AGENT J said:
All moral standards are subjective by definition and that isnt an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
Ummm, yes, that is... If a standard is SUBJECTIVE (internally controlled), then it isn't truly a standard to begin with. A true standard needs to be external. Otherwise, one is simply "changing the standard" (from a "moral" action into another "moral" action) instead of "disobeying" it (performing an immoral action).
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
I've never denied that there can be a lot of "gray area" when it comes to understanding morality in every conceivable situation. But that is discussing moral EPISTEMOLOGY, which is completely irrelevant to my discussion of moral ONTOLOGY, which is the part that a lot of respondents in this thread can't seem to grasp. I'm not discussing "how we know something to be true"; I'm discussing "what makes it true, as in, why morality exists in the first place, and what is it grounded in to make it true".
Click to expand...
Actually I am showing that morality is subjective period You have failed to make any argument that it isn't. You claim you have made an ontological argument but it isnt really an argument it is just your belief. Beliefs are inherently subjective.



I'm figuring out what's going on here, and it's that you are stuck on the epistemological angle while I'm trying to get at the ontological angle.
Click to expand...
No I'm dealing with the actual subjectivity of morality and you have yet to make any argument for objective morality

Moral epistemology can be debated and can be rather subjective; We both agree on that. That's what you are asserting, and I agree with that, but any system that is grounded on principles created by man cannot transcend man because it has no objective value. This means that, under subjective morality, there are no moral truths. Sure, one can believe that is the case, but that belief requires one to take the position that very absurd behaviors (such as mutilating little girls' genitalia and slowly/painfully torturing them to death) are not truly morally wrong behaviors because it would be nothing more than a subjective belief of a person (or group of people). Is this what you believe?
Click to expand...
You are trying to confuse 2 things here. the torturing of little girls to death is morally wrong because we decide it to be wrong but there is a biological imperative not to torture all little girls to death because that would end the species. Since all species have a biological imperative to live it is against the nature to end our existence as a species. That's isn't about morality it is about survival as a species. Different species have different ways of surviving.
To gain the opportunity to reproduce, sub-ordinate males try to take over the dominant role within a group, usually resulting in an aggressive struggle with the existing dominant male.[7] If successful in overthrowing the previous male, unrelated infants of the females are then killed.[8]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)


More irrelevant epistemology talk...


No, I don't have to explain "every single case"... That's, once again, the moral epistemology discussion; I'm discussing moral ontology. I only have to explain "don't steal for the fun of it", and that is an objectively immoral action; it is a moral truth that transcends mankind.
Click to expand...
Only you aren't providing any reason why morals are objective and if you cannot do so your claims of ontology are pointless. All we have is reality and in reality morals are, were and always will be subjective until someone can provide an objective measure. You have failed to do so thus morality remains subjective,
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Part 2
And, as a result of my response, I once again got you to make a "you ought not" claim, as if the wrongness of oppressive slavery is a moral truth. Under the worldview that you advocate for, the wrongness of oppressive slavery can only be a matter of opinion; it doesn't transcend mankind. If that wrongness transcends mankind, then there must be a transcendent personal moral agent that was the "lawgiver".
Click to expand...
1. Morality doesn't transcend mankind, we decide as societies what is moral.
2. Even if it did (which no one has been able to even come close to showing) it doesn't mean God(s) exist it just means we have found an objective measure for morality


Sure...
Click to expand...
So much of mankind's history was psychopathic?


You've shown that moral EPISTEMOLOGY can be subjective; you haven't said a word regarding moral ontology... You can't get "good and evil" without the existence of God. Sure, you could tack those words onto various actions, but since "man-made morality" is completely subjective, those words would ultimately hold no meaning. If God does not exist, there is no such thing as “goodness” at all. As an individual, or as a culture, we might prefer to help an old lady cross the street as opposed to mowing her down with our car, but neither behavior is morally superior to the other. All human acts would just be "molecules in motion", and neither molecules nor motion come in “good” and “bad” varieties. Morality is not a quality of matter (physical), but of mind (spiritual).
Click to expand...

You havent provided any valid argument for objective morality I have shown that it is subjective. If morality is based upon a persons views/opinion/beliefs which it is then it is subjective by the definition of subjective. For it to be objective you must show that there is a morality that is true regardless of a persons view/opinions/beliefs. You have failed to do so because they are always subject to a persons views/opinions/beliefs
If you wish to try and make an argument that they are go back start again. Repeating the term ontology over and over again doesn't make your non argument suddenly valid.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
Ummm, yes, that is... If a standard is SUBJECTIVE (internally controlled), then it isn't truly a standard to begin with. A true standard needs to be external. Otherwise, one is simply "changing the standard" (from a "moral" action into another "moral" action) instead of "disobeying" it (performing an immoral action).
Click to expand...

We do change the standards just as we change our laws. You dont get to decide today you wont follow such and such a law and expect it to be OK because laws are subjective do you?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

AGENT J said:
Nope, "i" dont have a definition of them like you seem too. "im" using facts and the dicitionary for both subjective and morals and by definition on a world level morals are subjective. If you disagree simply prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, you're just talking out your a$$...
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Quag said:
You are trying to confuse 2 things here. the torturing of little girls to death is morally wrong because we decide it to be wrong but there is a biological imperative not to torture all little girls to death because that would end the species. Since all species have a biological imperative to live it is against the nature to end our existence as a species. That's isn't about morality it is about survival as a species. Different species have different ways of surviving.
Click to expand...

Because we decide it to be wrong? Well, what if we later on decide it to be right? Then all of the sudden THAT becomes the moral action, instead of not doing it. That's the problem at hand... There is absolutely no moral standard if morality is subjective... "right" and "wrong" become completely meaningless words...

Also, and more importantly, who ever said that ALL little girls would then have to be mutilated and painfully tortured to death? Maybe that would only happen to a select few little girls for whatever reason. You're inserting the "ALL little girls" tidbit into the fray as a "get around" and distraction to answering the question at hand... The question is... This means that, under subjective morality, there are no moral truths. Sure, one can believe that is the case, but that belief requires one to take the position that very absurd behaviors (such as mutilating little girls' genitalia and slowly/painfully torturing them to death) are not truly morally wrong behaviors because it would be nothing more than a subjective belief of a person (or group of people). Is this what you believe?
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Quag said:
1. Morality doesn't transcend mankind, we decide as societies what is moral.
Click to expand...
In that case, there is no morality; just actions ("molecules in motion").

Quag said:
2. Even if it did (which no one has been able to even come close to showing) it doesn't mean God(s) exist it just means we have found an objective measure for morality.
Click to expand...
Yup, then one would have to identify the source. (Which, personally, I can't see leading to anything other than God)

Quag said:
So much of mankind's history was psychopathic?
Click to expand...
That part of history is.

Quag said:
You havent provided any valid argument for objective morality I have shown that it is subjective. If morality is based upon a persons views/opinion/beliefs which it is then it is subjective by the definition of subjective.
Click to expand...
If morality is subjective, there is no actual moral standard being followed.

Quag said:
For it to be objective you must show that there is a morality that is true regardless of a persons view/opinions/beliefs. You have failed to do so because they are always subject to a persons views/opinions/beliefs.
Click to expand...
Mutilating little girls' genitalia and slowly painfully torturing them to death?
Stealing for the fun of it?
Killing people for the fun of it?
Raping someone for the fun of it?
...
...
...

Quag said:
Repeating the term ontology over and over again doesn't make your non argument suddenly valid.
Click to expand...
I'm repeating the word over and over again because you aren't understanding that I am focused on the ontology, NOT the epistemology of morality, and you keep talking about moral epistemology instead because it's easier for you to talk about.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
Ummm, yes, that is... If a standard is SUBJECTIVE (internally controlled), then it isn't truly a standard to begin with. A true standard needs to be external. Otherwise, one is simply "changing the standard" (from a "moral" action into another "moral" action) instead of "disobeying" it (performing an immoral action).
Click to expand...

Nope it is simply the factual definition. Your feelings of that standard dont change what it is. Theres nothing factual that says a "true standard" has to be external . . nothing.
If you disagree, using facts and not your feelings, please simply do the following:

point out where a "true standard" is factually defined
point out where a true standard must factually be external
point out what outside source has to be used and what makes it not subjective

ill be waiting
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
No, you're just talking out your a$$...
Click to expand...

LMAO getitng angry over being proven factually wrong wont help your casre.
Facts and definitions > than your unsupportable illogical feelings

as always if you disagree simply factually prove otherwise, you cant, unlike the many posters that have proved you wrong. :shrug:
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

AGENT J said:
LMAO getitng angry over being proven factually wrong wont help your casre.
Facts and definitions > than your unsupportable illogical feelings

as always if you disagree simply factually prove otherwise, you cant, unlike the many posters that have proved you wrong. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not angry, just making an observation.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
Not angry, just making an observation.
Click to expand...

LMAO if you say so but it doesnt seem that way. And the observation you are making cant be support with anything of accurate, factual or intellectual merit. Let us know when you can support it and your other factually proven wrong false claims, thanks! :)
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
No, you're just talking out your a$$...
Click to expand...

But...but...but how is that possible since he has obviously laughed it completely off by now?:confused::mrgreen:
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Elvira said:
But...but...but how is that possible since he has obviously laughed it completely off by now?:confused::mrgreen:
Click to expand...

LOL still butt hurt i see. But i agree its not possible since there facts on my side that the majority of posters here have provided and proved already and on his side there are ZERO facts to support his proven wrong claim.

By all means though if you disagree PLEASE step up to the plate, use facts and prove otherwise thanks!


:popcorn2:
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
EXCELLENT post (I especially like your last sentence) which does a good job at simplifying why subjective morality isn't actually following any moral standard at all. In order for morality to hold meaning and be followed, it needs to exist externally.
Click to expand...

Nope, still wrong. "Externally" is your appeal to authority.

(Subjective,which is the only kind) morality holds meaning. And can be and is followed. And as been pointed out many many times to you, there are a large number of 'standards' globally which arose independently (but for reasons also spelled out for you re: the hierarchical social nature of humans).

It needs to be conceived of and communicated, that's all. And humans do that.

There is no evidence of any 'external' force or even influence on humans to follow a specific, objective, one & only moral code, as much as you'd like there to be
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
Ummm, yes, that is... If a standard is SUBJECTIVE (internally controlled), then it isn't truly a standard to begin with. A true standard needs to be external. Otherwise, one is simply "changing the standard" (from a "moral" action into another "moral" action) instead of "disobeying" it (performing an immoral action).
Click to expand...

This is a false statement. This is the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'. You can not show the statement 'A true standard needs to be external' is true for one. That is assuming your thesis that objective moral standards exist, and then you use that to prove that objective moral standards exist. That's circular in nature.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:
Because we decide it to be wrong? Well, what if we later on decide it to be right? Then all of the sudden THAT becomes the moral action, instead of not doing it. That's the problem at hand... There is absolutely no moral standard if morality is subjective... "right" and "wrong" become completely meaningless words...
Click to expand...
Right and wrong have the meaning we give them just as they have always had.
You may have trouble accepting that but that doesn't change reality

Also, and more importantly, who ever said that ALL little girls would then have to be mutilated and painfully tortured to death? Maybe that would only happen to a select few little girls for whatever reason. You're inserting the "ALL little girls" tidbit into the fray as a "get around" and distraction to answering the question at hand... The question is... This means that, under subjective morality, there are no moral truths. Sure, one can believe that is the case, but that belief requires one to take the position that very absurd behaviors (such as mutilating little girls' genitalia and slowly/painfully torturing them to death) are not truly morally wrong behaviors because it would be nothing more than a subjective belief of a person (or group of people). Is this what you believe?
Click to expand...
Societies have murdered and tortured some little girls to death and they felt they were doing the right thing.
Your argument fails because you assume that no society has done this and then you assume they didn't do this based on objective morals
Neither is proven to be true and your ontological argument fails as it is nothing more than your subjective opinion.
 
Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

AGENT J said:
LOL still butt hurt i see. But i agree its not possible since there facts on my side that the majority of posters here have provided and proved already and on his side there are ZERO facts to support his proven wrong claim.

By all means though if you disagree PLEASE step up to the plate, use facts and prove otherwise thanks!


:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

You are the one who seems to be obsessed with butts, not me...:moon:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom