Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?

[Leonard James]

Moral realists think morality is objective because core elements of our moral practice implicitly assume objective moral truth and so morality as we practice it cannot be maintained without this assumption.

Whilst I am well aware that I am not the brightest contributor here, I can't see the sense in that statement.  I have a moral code, I don't 'assume objective moral truth', and yet I can maintain my moral code. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

So those of us who do not believe our morality is distorted and want to be consistent in our beliefs accept that morality is objective – including as it happens large numbers of atheist philosophers.

I don't believe my morality is distorted and I think I am consistent with my belief, but why should I accept that morality is objective?

[floo]

Moral realists think morality is objective because core elements of our moral practice implicitly assume objective moral truth and so morality as we practice it cannot be maintained without this assumption.

Whilst I am well aware that I am not the brightest contributor here, I can't see the sense in that statement.  I have a moral code, I don't 'assume objective moral truth', and yet I can maintain my moral code. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

So those of us who do not believe our morality is distorted and want to be consistent in our beliefs accept that morality is objective – including as it happens large numbers of atheist philosophers.

I don't believe my morality is distorted and I think I am consistent with my belief, but why should I accept that morality is objective?

Don't put yourself down Leonard. Compared to a certain poster, who is 20 years your junior, you are way up in the intellectual acuity stakes. The rest of us would be very fortunate if we have as many marbles as you have at the age of 90.

[Leonard James]

Thank you, Roses! I know I ain't stupid, but sometimes all these philosophical terms don't seem to have a clear meaning to me.

[jjohnjil]

Even if every living person agreed that something is wrong/right, it is only their individual personal opinions. It does NOT mean that there is an objective moral code floating about somewhere beyond our ken

No one thinks that objective morality is dependent on people's opinions. This has been clarifies many times by both Alan and by me.

If I give you a moral question, can you give me the objective moral answer?

Is same sex marriage objectively morrally correct?

Yes it is.

This just shows that you imagine that anything you believe to be moral, makes it Objectively Moral!

Why on earth is objectivity even in the frame.  Some things - Alien's famous example is one, are abhorrent to the vast majority of us but that is because we all have feelings and loved ones we have a need to protect - it isn't because there is some great entity somewhere that lays down the rules!

All this monotonous 'moral realist' talk is complete bollocks!  It's simply a desperate way to try to bring a god into the question!  If a god existed, the last thing he/she/it would be bothered about would be whether gays living together had signed a piece of paper and called themselves married or not!

[Leonard James]

Why on earth is objectivity even in the frame.  Some things - Alien's famous example is one, are abhorrent to the vast majority of us but that is because we all have feelings and loved ones we have a need to protect - it isn't because there is some great entity somewhere that lays down the rules!

All this monotonous 'moral realist' talk is complete bollocks!  It's simply a desperate way to try to bring a god into the question!  If a god existed, the last thing he/she/it would be bothered about would be whether gays living together had signed a piece of paper and called themselves married or not!

Woosh! A blast of clean, fresh air!

[Outrider]

Whilst I am well aware that I am not the brightest contributor here, I can't see the sense in that statement.  I have a moral code, I don't 'assume objective moral truth', and yet I can maintain my moral code. Am I misunderstanding you?

Essentially, I think, it means that in making moral choices you are assuming that the idea of morality is valid. As so many people assume that morality as a concept is valid, it must be some sort of awareness of an actual 'real' morality, and that morality is absolute.

I don't believe my morality is distorted and I think I am consistent with my belief, but why should I accept that morality is objective?

There's no compelling reason that I've heard. Every morality has, at a basis, foundational assumptions but those assumptions differ from person to person. Not only have I not heard a compelling argument why one of these sets of assumptions 'must' be correct, I've not seen anything to suggest that such an argument is possible.

Given the massive cultural differentiations between those foundational assumptions - God's will is 'the right thing', the rights of the individual are paramount, 'good' is the benefit of the state, etc. - I can't see even a practical deduction that all moralities are a reflection of an objective one.

O.

[floo]

Thank you, Roses! I know I ain't stupid, but sometimes all these philosophical terms don't seem to have a clear meaning to me.

I wonder if they do to those who bandy them around?

[Leonard James]

Hi Outrider,

Essentially, I think, it means that in making moral choices you are assuming that the idea of morality is valid. As so many people assume that morality as a concept is valid, it must be some sort of awareness of an actual 'real' morality, and that morality is absolute.

The fact that morality is valid simply means that as a social, intelligent species we have to live by a code, otherwise we would self-destruct.

There's no compelling reason that I've heard. Every morality has, at a basis, foundational assumptions but those assumptions differ from person to person. Not only have I not heard a compelling argument why one of these sets of assumptions 'must' be correct, I've not seen anything to suggest that such an argument is possible.

Given the massive cultural differentiations between those foundational assumptions - God's will is 'the right thing', the rights of the individual are paramount, 'good' is the benefit of the state, etc. - I can't see even a practical deduction that all moralities are a reflection of an objective one.

Indeed! Since morality is nothing more than a code derived by us to facilitate social life, how can it have an objective source?

[jjohnjil]

Hi Outrider,

Essentially, I think, it means that in making moral choices you are assuming that the idea of morality is valid. As so many people assume that morality as a concept is valid, it must be some sort of awareness of an actual 'real' morality, and that morality is absolute.

The fact that morality is valid simply means that as a social, intelligent species we have to live by a code, otherwise we would self-destruct.

There's no compelling reason that I've heard. Every morality has, at a basis, foundational assumptions but those assumptions differ from person to person. Not only have I not heard a compelling argument why one of these sets of assumptions 'must' be correct, I've not seen anything to suggest that such an argument is possible.

Given the massive cultural differentiations between those foundational assumptions - God's will is 'the right thing', the rights of the individual are paramount, 'good' is the benefit of the state, etc. - I can't see even a practical deduction that all moralities are a reflection of an objective one.

Indeed! Since morality is nothing more than a code derived by us to facilitate social life, how can it have an objective source?

And gay marriage being objectively moral is the post that must win the booby prize of the year!

[BeRational]

Even if every living person agreed that something is wrong/right, it is only their individual personal opinions. It does NOT mean that there is an objective moral code floating about somewhere beyond our ken

No one thinks that objective morality is dependent on people's opinions. This has been clarifies many times by both Alan and by me.

If I give you a moral question, can you give me the objective moral answer?

Is same sex marriage objectively morrally correct?

Yes it is.

Can you show your working please?

[Dryghtons Toe]

Moral realists think morality is objective because core elements of our moral practice implicitly assume objective moral truth and so morality as we practice it cannot be maintained without this assumption.

Whilst I am well aware that I am not the brightest contributor here, I can't see the sense in that statement.  I have a moral code, I don't 'assume objective moral truth', and yet I can maintain my moral code. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

So those of us who do not believe our morality is distorted and want to be consistent in our beliefs accept that morality is objective – including as it happens large numbers of atheist philosophers.

I don't believe my morality is distorted and I think I am consistent with my belief, but why should I accept that morality is objective?

I am quite sure you have a moral code as most of us do. Equally I would hope that you like most of us when we condemn actions like ‘bullying gay children to the point of suicide’ think that this is wrong, and that when we say that this is wrong we don’t just mean that you personally disapprove of it, but that the persons doing the bullying are making a mistake worthy of condemnation and that they are doing something that is wrong whether or not their own personal feelings about gay people might lead them to think its ok. I would imagine that like most people you occasionally change your minds about moral issues including at time quite core moral issues, and moreover, that when you do this you reject the old view not because you have a change of taste but because you have come to a better understanding of the issue that leads you to accept that your old view was mistaken. These are central features of human moral discourse and moral experience that have been consistent across time and civilisation. 

 Given you have a moral code, and assuming it is characteristic of morality similar to the rest of humanity, containing key central features like those described above, the question then arises about what the status of your moral code is? If it’s not objective is it relative to you? Or to society? We discussed these in the first thread and this type of relativism soon runs into serious trouble. Alternatively are they based not in truth claims at all but in our non-cognitive personal responses? If so you end up running into all the problems raised against Jakswans post which, as we have all seen, he was completely incapable of defending.

 The other alternative is that moral statements are true or false just like other types of statements we consider to be true or false, ie compared to the facts of the matter. The way we use moral language certainly suggests moral statements are just like other truth-apt propositions. If this is the case then we have to look at what the best explanation is for moral facts existing. Theists can do this, but as of yet no atheist here has tried to justify moral realism without God.

[Dryghtons Toe]

This just shows that you imagine that anything you believe to be moral, makes it Objectively Moral!

He asked me a question I gave him an answer. No one has said we think we can prove OM so if you were expecting a proof you haven't understood the nature of the argument. However I don't think its objective because I believe it. I believe it because I think its true. I'm quite open to the fact that I may be wrong about this and many of my moral beliefs; however being right or wrong is only something that makes sense if there is a right answer, whether or not I have correctly identified it.

Why on earth is objectivity even in the frame.  Some things - Alien's famous example is one, are abhorrent to the vast majority of us but that is because we all have feelings and loved ones we have a need to protect - it isn't because there is some great entity somewhere that lays down the rules!

If that was true and all that morality was was our personal response then you would have thought that you could have come up with a defence to some of the problems with this I highlighted in post  351. Jakswan couldn't, can you?

All this monotonous 'moral realist' talk is complete bollocks!  It's simply a desperate way to try to bring a god into the question!  If a god existed, the last thing he/she/it would be bothered about would be whether gays living together had signed a piece of paper and called themselves married or not!

Whatever else you belief this is demonstrably false. There are a great many moral realists who are atheists including some renown atheists and humanist philosophers like Stephen Law. It might make u feel better to think that the only reason people accept realism is to bolster theism nevetherless the majority of academic philosophers are moral realists dispite the fact that only a minority are theists. This fact alone doesn't make it right of course, but it does prove your assertions wrong.

[Dryghtons Toe]

There's no compelling reason that I've heard. Every morality has, at a basis, foundational assumptions but those assumptions differ from person to person. Not only have I not heard a compelling argument why one of these sets of assumptions 'must' be correct, I've not seen anything to suggest that such an argument is possible.

Given the massive cultural differentiations between those foundational assumptions - God's will is 'the right thing', the rights of the individual are paramount, 'good' is the benefit of the state, etc. - I can't see even a practical deduction that all moralities are a reflection of an objective one.

I don't know why you would think cultural disagreement is an argument for no moral truth.. historically societies have disagreed culturally about all kinds of factual questions too. Disagreement would only count against moral realism if you thought there wasn't a right answer to the matter we were disagreeing about...as this is the issue in question thats simply begging the question. It also ignores the significant point of agreement between moral systems, namely that there IS a right answer.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Even if every living person agreed that something is wrong/right, it is only their individual personal opinions. It does NOT mean that there is an objective moral code floating about somewhere beyond our ken

No one thinks that objective morality is dependent on people's opinions. This has been clarifies many times by both Alan and by me.

If I give you a moral question, can you give me the objective moral answer?

Is same sex marriage objectively morrally correct?

Yes it is.

Can you show your working please?

Forming loving sexual relationships is an important and life enriching aspect of human life for most people, although some can be happy with a celibate life for many this isn't the case. Being gay isn't a matter of choice for people and trying to force them to be straight or celibate can be very harmful. This being the case (and all of these things are factual claims which are either true or false) then it would be difficult to see how opposing gay relationships would be conductive to the flourishing of gay people. As marriage is a key way in which people can have their relationships recognised legally, celebrate their commitment and possibly make that commitment formally in a religious setting for those of us who are theists, then this would also seem to be a good idea just like it is for straight couples. If there is a good argument while marriage should be kept as the province of straight couples I'm yet to hear it.

[BeRational]

Even if every living person agreed that something is wrong/right, it is only their individual personal opinions. It does NOT mean that there is an objective moral code floating about somewhere beyond our ken

No one thinks that objective morality is dependent on people's opinions. This has been clarifies many times by both Alan and by me.

If I give you a moral question, can you give me the objective moral answer?

Is same sex marriage objectively morrally correct?

Yes it is.

Can you show your working please?

Forming loving sexual relationships is an important and life enriching aspect of human life for most people, although some can be happy with a celibate life for many this isn't the case. Being gay isn't a matter of choice for people and trying to force them to be straight or celibate can be very harmful. This being the case (and all of these things are factual claims which are either true or false) then it would be difficult to see how opposing gay relationships would be conductive to the flourishing of gay people. As marriage is a key way in which people can have their relationships recognised legally, celebrate their commitment and possibly make that commitment formally in a religious setting for those of us who are theists, then this would also seem to be a good idea just like it is for straight couples. If there is a good argument while marriage should be kept as the province of straight couples I'm yet to hear it.

Thanks for your opinions.
What you need to show though is the method that you and anyone else can use to show that same sex marriage is objectively morally correct.
What is the method please?

[Dryghtons Toe]

Exactly the same method i have used.....use reason and observation to make a case for what we should do in order to promote human flourishing. Usually this will be less direct and require us to think about the virtues we require to flourish and what the implications of these are for the situation, but it will still come down to the facts we are considering. Sure its my opinion, everything i believe is my opinion by default, but my opinion is about facts which are true or false, whether or not its easy to get at them and the method is the right one for doing that. Anyone can use it and if I've made a mistake they can point it out.

If you were expecting that moral truth was something that we could just read off or prove then you haven't understood what it means to claim morality is objective because I've been very clear we can't do that, nor do we need to in order to progress towards discovering moral truth.

[Leonard James]

If you were expecting that moral truth was something that we could just read off or prove then you haven't understood what it means to claim morality is objective because I've been very clear we can't do that, nor do we need to in order to progress towards discovering moral truth.

So it seems that although we have a different idea of what 'objective' means, we both believe the same thing ... that morality is only a human concept.

[Dryghtons Toe]

If you were expecting that moral truth was something that we could just read off or prove then you haven't understood what it means to claim morality is objective because I've been very clear we can't do that, nor do we need to in order to progress towards discovering moral truth.

So it seems that although we have a different idea of what 'objective' means, we both believe the same thing ... that morality is only a human concept.

No I don't think that. I think morality is grounded in facts, ultimately in facts about Gods purposes. As like most theists i think that bringing into being conscious beings and the flourishing of those beings are a key part of that purpose then our discovery of moral truth, when the questions relate to matters of human life like the ones we are discussing, will therefore centre around questions of human flourishing.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Leonard,

I'd be interested to hear your response to my post yesterday regarding what I'm assuming about your moral views. The example I gave was bullying a gay child to the point of suicide. I know you think this is wrong because I remember you positing about an example of it with an American child. What I'd like to know is what you mean when you say its wrong. Do you just mean that you disapprove of it but accept that if the bullies personal responses lead them to not disapprove of it, maybe find it funny even or just, that it would be ok for them...or do you think acts like this are always wrong regardless of what the people doing the bullying actually think about it or regardless of whether the society they live in condones this type of behaviour towards gay people?

[Leonard James]

Leonard,

I'd be interested to hear your response to my post yesterday regarding what I'm assuming about your moral views. The example I gave was bullying a gay child to the point of suicide. I know you think this is wrong because I remember you positing about an example of it with an American child. What I'd like to know is what you mean when you say its wrong. Do you just mean that you disapprove of it but accept that if the bullies personal responses lead them to not disapprove of it, maybe find it funny even or just, that it would be ok for them...or do you think acts like this are always wrong regardless of what the people doing the bullying actually think about it or regardless of whether the society they live in condones this type of behaviour towards gay people?

My opinion is that it is always wrong to bully a child for anything at all, regardless of whether I consider it is right or not.

Bullying (aggressive treatment of one child by a group of others) is never justified, and even less so when the child has done no wrong.

There are civilised ways of punishing antisocial behaviour, and bullying is not one of them.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Great i agree. So as it's always wrong to bully a child, even if someone's personal responses and opinions may be different, then it can't be true to say that what is right for them (the bullies) to do is dependent on their opinions or their personal responses. And (reading between the lines of yr post) would it seem that the act would stop being wrong if the society in which the bullying happened thinks it was ok.

So what makes it wrong Leonard if its not the opinions or responses of either individuals or of societies?

[Leonard James]

Great i agree. So as it's always wrong to bully a child, even if someone's personal responses and opinions may be different, then it can't be true to say that what is right for them (the bullies) to do is dependent on their opinions or their personal responses. And (reading between the lines of yr post) would it seem that the act would stop being wrong if the society in which the bullying happened thinks it was ok.

So what makes it wrong Leonard if its not the opinions or responses of either individuals or of societies?

You will note that my post started with "in my opinion". And in my opinion it is always wrong, no matter whether societies decide it is wrong or right.

However, nothing MAKES it wrong ... it is just wrong in my opinion.

[jjohnjil]

This just shows that you imagine that anything you believe to be moral, makes it Objectively Moral!

He asked me a question I gave him an answer. No one has said we think we can prove OM so if you were expecting a proof you haven't understood the nature of the argument. However I don't think its objective because I believe it. I believe it because I think its true. I'm quite open to the fact that I may be wrong about this and many of my moral beliefs; however being right or wrong is only something that makes sense if there is a right answer, whether or not I have correctly identified it.

Why on earth is objectivity even in the frame.  Some things - Alien's famous example is one, are abhorrent to the vast majority of us but that is because we all have feelings and loved ones we have a need to protect - it isn't because there is some great entity somewhere that lays down the rules!

If that was true and all that morality was was our personal response then you would have thought that you could have come up with a defence to some of the problems with this I highlighted in post  351. Jakswan couldn't, can you?

All this monotonous 'moral realist' talk is complete bollocks!  It's simply a desperate way to try to bring a god into the question!  If a god existed, the last thing he/she/it would be bothered about would be whether gays living together had signed a piece of paper and called themselves married or not!

Whatever else you belief this is demonstrably false. There are a great many moral realists who are atheists including some renown atheists and humanist philosophers like Stephen Law. It might make u feel better to think that the only reason people accept realism is to bolster theism nevetherless the majority of academic philosophers are moral realists dispite the fact that only a minority are theists. This fact alone doesn't make it right of course, but it does prove your assertions wrong.

DT

You are telling us your reasons why you consider certain actions are wrong and I'm quite sure we all agree with you.  You would hate to be subjected to bullying etc and would hate your loved ones or any other human or animal to suffer in that way. We all agree with that but IOV it isn't something set in stone by anyone other than us, the human race. 

Likewise, marriage most of us would consider the right of any couple, gay or straight and who love each other.  No argument there. 

Where these deeply held feelings come from is the question.  You and Alan seem to us to imagine that some thinking, intelligent entity has decided that such actions are wrong - this is where the two sides part company!

I think most atheists would say that it is a product of evolution and that without that concern for others of our species, we would have died out long ago.  Most animals look after their own offspring and we have simply taken it forward to have concern for all, or most, other species too.

You, being a theist, and thinking God created everything, would obviously make morality just another 'thing' he created ... which is why I, as an atheist, believe your understanding to be wrong.

Discussing what we believe to be right or wrong is pointless, we need you to persuade us that there is someone or something that consciously decides them to be right or wrong.  That is the yawning gulf between us.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Great i agree. So as it's always wrong to bully a child, even if someone's personal responses and opinions may be different, then it can't be true to say that what is right for them (the bullies) to do is dependent on their opinions or their personal responses. And (reading between the lines of yr post) would it seem that the act would stop being wrong if the society in which the bullying happened thinks it was ok.

So what makes it wrong Leonard if its not the opinions or responses of either individuals or of societies?

You will note that my post started with "in my opinion". And in my opinion it is always wrong, no matter whether societies decide it is wrong or right.

However, nothing MAKES it wrong ... it is just wrong in my opinion.

Yes I did notice that, but that in itself isn’t particularly exciting. Everything you believe is your opinion just as everything I believe is mine. It’s my opinion that God exists and yours that he doesn’t – but either he exists or he doesn’t so one of us is right and the other is wrong, even if neither of us can prove it.

With morality the question we are discussing is whether moral questions are ones that are right or wrong. If your opinion is that bullying kids is wrong and it’s also a question with a right answer then your opinion (that I share) could also be right.

If by contrast it’s rightness means nothing more than I disapprove of it, then to be consistent we have to also accept that if someone else thinks bully gay kids to the point of suicide is ok, then it is ok for them (as there’s nothing beyond that to appeal to). You however have just expressly denied that this is the case.

[Dryghtons Toe]

This just shows that you imagine that anything you believe to be moral, makes it Objectively Moral!

He asked me a question I gave him an answer. No one has said we think we can prove OM so if you were expecting a proof you haven't understood the nature of the argument. However I don't think its objective because I believe it. I believe it because I think its true. I'm quite open to the fact that I may be wrong about this and many of my moral beliefs; however being right or wrong is only something that makes sense if there is a right answer, whether or not I have correctly identified it.

Why on earth is objectivity even in the frame.  Some things - Alien's famous example is one, are abhorrent to the vast majority of us but that is because we all have feelings and loved ones we have a need to protect - it isn't because there is some great entity somewhere that lays down the rules!

If that was true and all that morality was was our personal response then you would have thought that you could have come up with a defence to some of the problems with this I highlighted in post  351. Jakswan couldn't, can you?

All this monotonous 'moral realist' talk is complete bollocks!  It's simply a desperate way to try to bring a god into the question!  If a god existed, the last thing he/she/it would be bothered about would be whether gays living together had signed a piece of paper and called themselves married or not!

Whatever else you belief this is demonstrably false. There are a great many moral realists who are atheists including some renown atheists and humanist philosophers like Stephen Law. It might make u feel better to think that the only reason people accept realism is to bolster theism nevetherless the majority of academic philosophers are moral realists dispite the fact that only a minority are theists. This fact alone doesn't make it right of course, but it does prove your assertions wrong.

DT

You are telling us your reasons why you consider certain actions are wrong and I'm quite sure we all agree with you.  You would hate to be subjected to bullying etc and would hate your loved ones or any other human or animal to suffer in that way. We all agree with that but IOV it isn't something set in stone by anyone other than us, the human race. 

Likewise, marriage most of us would consider the right of any couple, gay or straight and who love each other.  No argument there. 

Where these deeply held feelings come from is the question.  You and Alan seem to us to imagine that some thinking, intelligent entity has decided that such actions are wrong - this is where the two sides part company!

I think most atheists would say that it is a product of evolution and that without that concern for others of our species, we would have died out long ago.  Most animals look after their own offspring and we have simply taken it forward to have concern for all, or most, other species too.

You, being a theist, and thinking God created everything, would obviously make morality just another 'thing' he created ... which is why I, as an atheist, believe your understanding to be wrong.

Discussing what we believe to be right or wrong is pointless, we need you to persuade us that there is someone or something that consciously decides them to be right or wrong.  That is the yawning gulf between us.

I think you have misunderstood my case for objective morality. I have not claimed that morality is based on Gods commands he has just arbitrarily decided. God’s purposes are teleological facts embodied in the universe whether we recognise them or not. What does or does not cause us to flourish as conscious beings is down to facts about us and these facts are embodied in the way the universe is including our own physiological, psychological and spiritual natures, not a matter of anyone’s whim from moment to moment.

The reason we think morality is objective is quite independent of belief in God, based on the character of our moral belief – and the fact that these arguments are accepted as correct by so many atheists demonstrates this. Whether or not atheists can then make a convincing case for morality being objective that does not involve God is the question we are then left with. Either way the alternative cases made for understanding morality based on relative truth or personal non-cognitive responses don’t work as we have seen. If you like you can follow atheists like Alex Rosenburg and embrace nihilism but just don’t pretend a non-realist theory of ethics can explain our morality as it exists in human society. For those of us who accept the reality of our moral experience and who also, like you it seems, find atheist arguments for OM unconvincing, then we have a reason to believe in God.