• 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.

Zinthaniel

Zinthaniel

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
1,112
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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?
 
Last edited:
Zinthaniel said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are mostly right. Although as a Thomist I would say that murder and theft are always wrong, and would note that homicide is not always murder and taking is not always theft.
 
Paleocon said:
You are mostly right. Although as a Thomist I would say that murder and theft are always wrong, and would note that homicide is not always murder and taking is not always theft.
Click to expand...

My main point is that subjective moralist focus entirely on an action alone and thus believe that because that action can be applied in various circumstances that that alone proves morality is subjective. What i believe is there understanding of what determines morality is wrong. IT's not the action, it's the context, the circumstance, the reasons involved that determine, objectively, whether an action is right or wrong.
 
Zinthaniel said:
Objective morality is nuanced and varies objectively not upon actions but upon circumstances.
Click to expand...

Or, in other words, morality is subjective.

I agree.
 
Zinthaniel said:
My main point is that subjective moralist focus entirely on an action alone and thus believe that because that action can be applied in various circumstances that that alone proves morality is subjective. What i believe is there understanding of what determines morality is wrong. IT's not the action, it's the context, the circumstance, the reasons involved that determine, objectively, whether an action is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree about morality being objective.

I actually tend to think that the moral relativist actually sees disagreement about whether an act is wrong as the basis for why morality is subjective. And that the argument regarding circumstances is simply made because they realize on a subconscious level that it's absurd to appeal to the opinions of psychopaths to prove the non-existence of objective morality.
 
I think objective morality is very simple. Causing suffering, harm, fear, and anguish (and other synonyms) is wrong. Alleviating those things is right. That's all there is to it. Apply that rule to any situation. Adding more suffering to the world is bad, reducing the suffering in the world is good. Done.
 
soot said:
Or, in other words, morality is subjective.

I agree.
Click to expand...

no. Unless you somehow believe that killing someone who is innocent unarmed, and not a threat is morally up to interpretation even when that qualifying statements is all that defines that circumstance. I believe that objectively killing in that instance will always be wrong when performed in that context. That is an objective moral statement.

So again my point is that because morality, that is objective, is also nuance and can vary depending on variables people believe it is subjective. But it's not, because depending on the circumstance the action will Always be wrong or Always be right in accordance to the context.
 
Zinthaniel said:
My main point is that subjective moralist focus entirely on an action alone and thus believe that because that action can be applied in various circumstances that that alone proves morality is subjective.
Click to expand...

In my experience, it's those who believe that morality is objective who are more likely to argue that the morality of an action is not based on the consequences.

But it makes no real difference. Saying that the consequences do or do not matter is not logically connected to either side. It matters to those who do not understand the difference between ethics (ie values) and morals. Morals deal with behavior in specific situations, so in order to judge the morality of a behavior, the consequences must be considered. I would argue that the consequences are the only thing that matter and that determining whether a consequence is "good" or "bad" is dependent on ones' ethics. Note that this process is true regardless of whether one thinks morality is objective or not.

The only way to show that morality (or as the preceding implies, ethics) are objective is to show that ethics are somehow inextricably a part of the natural world and not an invention of the human mind. Showing that a behavior, such as theft, can be both good or bad depending on the circumstances does not, in any way, demonstrate that morality is objective (or subjective)
 
It isn't an either/or situation. We know that subjective morality exists. The only question is whether or not objective morality exists. It's impossible to prove one way or the other, but it is my subjective opinion that objective morality does exist.

This is parallel to the debate over objective beauty. If I look at a flower and enjoy the way it looks, my enjoyment is subjective beauty, but can a flower have beauty even when no one is looking at it (objective beauty)? It's purely a matter of opinion but I say yes.
 
sangha said:
In my experience, it's those who believe that morality is objective who are more likely to argue that the morality of an action is not based on the consequences.

But it makes no real difference. Saying that the consequences do or do not matter is not logically connected to either side. It matters to those who do not understand the difference between ethics (ie values) and morals. Morals deal with behavior in specific situations, so in order to judge the morality of a behavior, the consequences must be considered. I would argue that the consequences are the only thing that matter and that determining whether a consequence is "good" or "bad" is dependent on ones' ethics. Note that this process is true regardless of whether one thinks morality is objective or not.

The only way to show that morality (or as the preceding implies, ethics) are objective is to show that ethics are somehow inextricably a part of the natural world and not an invention of the human mind. Showing that a behavior, such as theft, can be both good or bad depending on the circumstances does not, in any way, demonstrate that morality is objective (or subjective)
Click to expand...

Well I believe morality is a result of more that just human construct. I believe that morality helps us maintain societies that don't break down into chaos and massacre. Sure in nature animals steal, but animals live a very hard knock life and their actions often times result in more hardship. If they had our intelligence, and maybe I am being arrogant human, they would most likely develop a system of morality as well. It benefits the whole, at least for social species.
 
First, I think the premise of the OP is flawed from the beginning because morality is neither subjective or objective. Morality is what is right or wrong to any single individual at any given time. It will be based on one's inate sense of right and wrong and also influence from religion, culture, and life experience. But to ask with "A" is right or wrong as opposed to "B", is like asking whether dolphins or popcorn is better. It is impossible to compare those two things.

Some would say it was okay to steal that peanut butter, etc. if you and your child are hungry. Others would say you are morally wrong if you do not first exhaust every possible means of obtaining that peanut butter etc. without stealing or doing something morally wrong. And even then, some say it is okay to accept charity that is offered; others would say that it is morally wrong to accept charity when you are perfectly capable of working for what you need.

And then there is always the issue of the degree of harm done. Stealing two or three items from a large grocery order would only inconvenience the one the items are stolen from, and that might be more justifiable than stealing the same items from somebody who would then go hungry.

But the bottom line is always that morality will be in the eye of the beholder. The peace loving Buddhist will take a very different view of morality than will a islamofacist Islamic extremist who sees it as moral to destroy enemies of Allah.

Ultimately, our morality and character will be reflected in how we conduct ourselves when nobody can see or know what we are doing.
 
Zinthaniel said:
Well I believe morality is a result of more that just human construct.
Click to expand...

That's cool, but you know what would be even cooler?

Evidence that morality is actually objective and not merely a human construct

I believe that morality helps us maintain societies that don't break down into chaos and massacre. Sure in nature animals steal, but animals live a very hard knock life and their actions often times result in more hardship. If they had our intelligence, and maybe I am being arrogant human, they would most likely develop a system of morality as well. It benefits the whole, at least for social species.
Click to expand...

These are good reasons for why we should act in a moral way but they are not arguments that demonstrate that morality is objective.
 
sangha said:
The only way to show that morality (or as the preceding implies, ethics) are objective is to show that ethics are somehow inextricably a part of the natural world and not an invention of the human mind.
Click to expand...

And that's what Thomism is for.
 
BTW Zinthaniel, are you a Thomist?
 
Paschendale said:
I think objective morality is very simple. Causing suffering, harm, fear, and anguish (and other synonyms) is wrong. Alleviating those things is right. That's all there is to it. Apply that rule to any situation. Adding more suffering to the world is bad, reducing the suffering in the world is good. Done.
Click to expand...

Someone has read Atlas Shrugged.
 
AlbqOwl said:
First, I think the premise of the OP is flawed from the beginning because morality is neither subjective or objective. Morality is what is right or wrong to any single individual at any given time. It will be based on one's inate sense of right and wrong and also influence from religion, culture, and life experience. But to ask with "A" is right or wrong as opposed to "B", is like asking whether dolphins or popcorn is better. It is impossible to compare those two things.

Some would say it was okay to steal that peanut butter, etc. if you and your child are hungry. Others would say you are morally wrong if you do not first exhaust every possible means of obtaining that peanut butter etc. without stealing or doing something morally wrong. And even then, some say it is okay to accept charity that is offered; others would say that it is morally wrong to accept charity when you are perfectly capable of working for what you need.

And then there is always the issue of the degree of harm done. Stealing two or three items from a large grocery order would only inconvenience the one the items are stolen from, and that might be more justifiable than stealing the same items from somebody who would then go hungry.

But the bottom line is always that morality will be in the eye of the beholder. The peace loving Buddhist will take a very different view of morality than will a islamofacist Islamic extremist who sees it as moral to destroy enemies of Allah.

Ultimately, our morality and character will be reflected in how we conduct ourselves when nobody can see or know what we are doing.
Click to expand...

The premise of my op is that my understanding or my belief in the morality of an action is that it is judged based off of the circumstance/context and it can be consistently viewed as negative or positive.

I believe that all well minded humans will agree that drowning a baby for no reason is always wrong. And i believe that in of it's self is an objective moral statement. And I believe to argue that scenario is not objective would require more than just someone saying "Well I believe drowning babies is ok and right" - A honest and intellectual explanation for why such an act could be ok would be required and I believe their answer when under scrutiny would never hold up.
 
Paleocon said:
Isn't what he said nearly the exact opposite of Atlas Shrugged?
Click to expand...

No, that was almost a word for word quote from the John Galt speech.

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil."
 
sangha said:
That's cool, but you know what would be even cooler?

Evidence that morality is actually objective and not merely a human construct.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the pudding. Maybe I'm not approaching this in the abstract way everyone else is, but i believe that depending on the circumstance something is either always wrong or always right. The proof is the consequence of the action performed and the reason. And I would point back to my examples. Sure some people could argue that what I see as unforgivable killing can be righteous and pure, but I can argue why it's wrong objectively and how that negatively impacts us all. I don't believe there is an argument to refute it. That is why I believe that it is all self evidentiary.
 
Zinthaniel said:
The premise of my op is that my understanding or my belief in the morality of an action is that it is judged based off of the circumstance/context and it can be consistently viewed as negative or positive.

I believe that all well minded humans will agree that drowning a baby for no reason is always wrong. And i believe that in of it's self is an objective moral statement. And I believe to argue that scenario is not objective would require more than just someone saying "Well I believe drowning babies is ok and right" - A honest and intellectual explanation for why such an act could be ok would be required and I believe their answer when under scrutiny would never hold up.
Click to expand...

But are you arguing for what YOU consider to be moral? What I consider to be moral? Or are you arguing for what society considers to be moral? Who is qualified to be the judge and jury for that?
 
Morality is mainly a human instinct evolved to aid survival and procreation using group based strategies. It is both objective and subjective.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But are you arguing for what YOU consider to be moral? What I consider to be moral? Or are you arguing for what society considers to be moral? Who is qualified to be the judge and jury for that?
Click to expand...

I'm arguing from the reality of a circumstance. Our opinions are abstract and in exist in the vacuum of our mind, our actions do not. When performed that have real effects on our reality that are consistent with everybody else. This is objective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom