Does Objective Morality Exist?

[handoferis]

Any society where property can be owned and traded will develop some form of free-market economy. Any free market economy will have different degrees of winners and losers. Without a utilitarian aspect to governance, where things are created for the greater utility of the general population (public roads, a welfare state, public healthcare, anti-pollution laws etc.), you'll end up with situations where large swaths of the population comes out on the loser side of the economy and have nothing to keep them from falling to zero. Falling to zero tends to lead to desperation which tends to lead to crime.

bit of a diversion from the main topic of the thread but really enjoy how you phrased this, it sums up two self-made maxims I regularly repeat, those being "you pay your taxes so the angry mob don't tax you at 100%" and "it's probably for the best that people who are permanently on welfare get put up in a shit house watching daytime tv rather than shitting up your workplace or robbing you"

 

[0ur0b0r0s]

Yes

Came here to post this

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

Still waiting on objective moralists to outline the objective morals.

 

[anagram.nagaram]

1. In order to make moral decisions, humans are required to logically analyse situations
2. Logical decision making relies on information
3. Access to information is contingent on the subjective experiences of a given human
4. Therefore, moral decision making is subjective.

I actually agree with this argument.

• Moral decisions require analysis
• Analysis is made from past experiences and wisdom. Not an equal playing field for all people.
• Therefore, people come to the wrong conclusions.

Eureka! If we can approach an objective morality by considering all logic, facts, and empathy there must exist an objective morality! Like an equation who's limit approaches but never reaches its destination since that destination is the gold standard and people cannot be wholly perfect.

This is also why we don't hold mentally handicapped people to the same moral standards as everyone else. If morality was objective, what they do would be equally as moral or immoral as everyone else. But because they are largely incapable of moral decision making, they cannot be considered immoral. This also makes "moral" the default position - everything is moral until it can be reasonably inferred that it was done with ill-intent or was designed to cause harm, then it becomes immoral. I'm fine with that. Things like negligence are a lot less clear cut.

That's an interesting point. It's true that we will judge an insane person with a lighter sentence but ultimately, they still committed a crime. You can't just kill someone and then say "Sorry judge, I didn't know that was wrong". But this is an argument regarding how cultures carry out punishment, not what they consider wrong.

Also consider, if morality is objective, we should be able to inherently measure the "moralityness" of something. In a universe with 1 human, everything is inherently moral, so this "moralityness" doesn't exist.

Unless morality is not based on humans but on natural law like those found in nature.

Also, OP, I disagree with your first premise. Young children, psychopaths, and mentally deficient people are often not aware of the fact that they can commit evil. Even if they are aware of that high-level fact, they may not be able to determine if a given action is evil or not. The second premise suffers from the same problem. The argument is also a non-sequitor. What does the existence of universal, physical laws have to do with objective morality?

Also, the debate around abortion is inherently one about whether or not it's right/wrong. Determining whether it's murder is also determining whether it's right or wrong, because by being murder it is inherently wrong.

I really have no idea regarding psychotic people (maybe a user can chip in?) but I always assumed they simply didn't have a conscience but I'm sure they still know the difference between right and wrong.

I'll change my last phrase to this: If morality were to exist at all, It would need to be objective since the entire universe is made possible through axiomatic scientific principles. But yeah, since we're arguing the existence of morality this isn't helpful and they're not necessarily related at all. I just thought it was an interesting peek from another angle.

 

[InsufferableCynic]

I'll change my last phrase to this: If morality were to exist at all, It would need to be objective since the entire universe is made possible through axiomatic scientific principles. But yeah, since we're arguing the existence of morality this isn't helpful and they're not necessarily related at all. I just thought it was an interesting peek from another angle.

I think you're confusing morality for something that physically exists and can thus be objectively measured.

Morality is just something we made up arbitrarily to make society work better.

I know that's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's true.

 

[ev13wt]

What IS right or wrong but a mutually agreed upon thing?
It's a result of being in this .... place. This universe works in bouncing stuff around. Waves. Waves need poles. Like north and South Pole. Why is the North Pole even „up"? What IS up?

As such, how to answer this question from within the system?

The answer is both and neither.

 

[ev13wt]

I think you're confusing morality for something that physically exists and can thus be objectively measured.

Morality is just something we made up arbitrarily to make society work better.

I know that's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's true.

It is true.

But what is „exists"?

In the grand scheme of thing, is death or „killing" even relevant or anything important?

 

[Delmonico Maserati]

The Quest for a True Morality is essential because from it we can derive a proper ethic for how to live our lives.
It depends on what kind of morality you are looking at. In my life I have come across two types commonly discussed.
The first is that of "Good" and "Evil". These concepts, when engaged in the traditional conflict, can be boiled down to be understood as subjective views. What is "Good" is what we have a craving towards and what is "Evil" is what we have an aversion towards. This moral debate is inherently ceaseless, as long as there is more than one human it will never be solved. It is not true morality in the sense that it is rooted solely in a posteriori thought, thought stemming from reactions to experiences in our everyday human lives.
The other type is that of a higher "way". This is a singular morality, not rooted in conflict but existing as its own. This morality is objective, it is merely the way the universe is playing out according to the physical laws. The morality we draw from the unfolding of these forces is merely our logical understanding of the metaphysical ramification of what is going on. This type of ethic is often the root of religious thought. It is the Law of God so to speak. In Judaism it is called Torah (God's Law) and in Hinduism/Buddhism it is called Dharma (Ethic or Way) though this is a very oversimplified interpretation of those concepts, they are worth doing more digging into if you are interested in ethics and are willing to read religious texts with reverence and reason (which they deserve). This morality is rooted in our a priori thought, thoughts that we derive aside from our reactions to stimuli.
A note on A Priori Thought: A priori thought occurs logically prior to our experiences. It may seem like an impossible concept, but it is something we do everyday, just like a posteriori. This type of thought can be called our "reason" (some thinkers prefer the term "pure reason") our ability to derive the truth in a given situation regardless of our individual qualities.
These two ethics are both true. We have a subjective morality rooted in the physical experiences of your life, this morality is our guide and our construction of the universe from an individual standpoint. There is also an objective morality to how the world works. The summation of all forces, both physical and metaphysical interacting upon each other all at once, the construction of the entire universe as one singular concept.
If only subjective morality exists, or if only subjective morality is followed, one leads a life of selfish desire, driven into repeatable cycles of suffering brought about by improper action (actions leading to suffering, illusion, ignorance and pain) or improper inaction (not living your life).
If only objective morality exists than there is nothing. The unity of everything exists as an ever manifesting potentiality, since not everything that can exists does in every moment. The objective morality is only achievable in a a partial form in our lifetimes, it is not a state we can reach as long as we have embodied existence (a fancy way of saying as long as we are alive here in the universe).
When we die, we join the empty unity of the universe as one of countless potential streams of existence that briefly manifested along an arbitrary course of entropy. This can seem dark for some people, perhaps part of growing up and being human is to find the goodness in such a state.
The truth is that there is no mutually exclusive existence between the two. There exists an objective morality and a subjective morality. They are both essential to human functioning in the universe. The subjective morality is our guide to everyday action, rooted in an objective good to ensure that whatever inclination we follow is always the right course (or at least a course which does not breed suffering). What that objective good is can be a whole other topic, and this is already a word dump. However a quick answer is compassion, or good will. Compassion is a good that is an end in itself, we are compassionate in order to instill compassion in others. Even an intuitive glance can tell that being kind is a good thing, but if someone is skeptical I would love to explain more.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading. If you are interested in discussing more I would love to, I think a moment is never wasted discussing this stuff, and above it all it is good fun!

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

What that objective good is can be a whole other topic, and this is already a word dump. However a quick answer is compassion, or good will. Compassion is a good that is an end in itself, we are compassionate in order to instill compassion in others. Even an intuitive glance can tell that being kind is a good thing, but if someone is skeptical I would love to explain more.

I would like you to expand on this "objective good" that can be simplified as "compassion" or "goodwill".

Its, of course, beneficial as a society to help one another. That is how humans became what we experience at this point in time. Goodwill as a means of gauging moral objectivity is, itself, too subjective in my view to be quantifiable in any objective way. I would like to see how it is that you define "goodwill" in terms of objective morality and how you would use it to gauge the morality of others.

A scenario that comes to my mind is this: Imagine you have a family member who is heavily addicted to opioids and is thusly homeless. You do not hate them, you love them deeply and want to help them the best you can. One could easily say that letting them stay with you for a while is an act of goodwill. At some point, though, that stay in your house will become enabling for their addiction if the right steps are not taken by each party involved. Even if it is not objectively detrimental to your drug addicted family member to overstay their welcome, it could quickly become detrimental, physically and emotionally, to the immediate family living in your house. At this point, do you: Kick your drug addicted family member out of the house out of goodwill for your family or do you let your family endure detrimental behavior out of good will for your other family member? At this point, I would see it as less of a case of doing what is 'compassionate' and more of a case of weighing the options between two 'compassionate' acts, thus signifying an even deeper moral truth than 'compassion' or 'goodwill'.

I'd love to see your thoughts on this, if you disagree with any of my definitions, or do not feel this is an apt scenario to judge!

 

[Delmonico Maserati]

I would like you to expand on this "objective good" that can be simplified as "compassion" or "goodwill".

Its, of course, beneficial as a society to help one another. That is how humans became what we experience at this point in time. Goodwill as a means of gauging moral objectivity is, itself, too subjective in my view to be quantifiable in any objective way. I would like to see how it is that you define "goodwill" in terms of objective morality and how you would use it to gauge the morality of others.

A scenario that comes to my mind is this: Imagine you have a family member who is heavily addicted to opioids and is thusly homeless. You do not hate them, you love them deeply and want to help them the best you can. One could easily say that letting them stay with you for a while is an act of goodwill. At some point, though, that stay in your house will become enabling for their addiction if the right steps are not taken by each party involved. Even if it is not objectively detrimental to your drug addicted family member to overstay their welcome, it could quickly become detrimental, physically and emotionally, to the immediate family living in your house. At this point, do you: Kick your drug addicted family member out of the house out of goodwill for your family or do you let your family endure detrimental behavior out of good will for your other family member? At this point, I would see it as less of a case of doing what is 'compassionate' and more of a case of weighing the options between two 'compassionate' acts, thus signifying an even deeper moral truth than 'compassion' or 'goodwill'.

I'd love to see your thoughts on this, if you disagree with any of my definitions, or do not feel this is an apt scenario to judge!

An interesting conundrum, certainly a fine example of the nuance involved in ethical decision making. I'll bite!

Now to my Opioid-head relative, let's call him Max. Let's say I uphold compassion as the highest good. If true, this would mean that in every situation it would uphold that having compassion as my direct aim is going to lead to actions creating the most good. Since compassion is the highest good, I will know that the desired outcome of the ethical option is compassion. I want to generate good, and the best good is compassion. So before I make any decision regarding Max, I know off the bat that my goal is compassion. Therefore I want Max to have instilled in him the same desire towards good-will that I am feeling, which is the desire towards good-will. I am not making my decision for any other reason than out of compassion. Compassion is both the means and the end of my choice. Given that, I see two options in front of me.

First, I kick Max out of the house. I know that I must act with compassion and for compassion. Therefore I speak to Max. I let him know that while I love him very much I cannot currently house him, it is too much of an imposition on my life and I want to set an appropriate boundary. His circumstances, while regrettable, ought not to preclude him from basic human respect, if he truly loves me he would respect my requested boundaries. If not, and he acts unethically, than he has chosen that path. He must be held responsible for his actions as much as I am, and he is. If he reacts negatively, let's say spirals out in anger and uses, that is his choice at the end of the day. He needs to be held responsible, allowing him to be enabled. Either way I end up no longer morally responsible, and I get him out of my house. His actions are his moral responsibility. I of course empathize and would obviously do all I can to help him move, be there for support in his life and do all I can to show my deep love for him. I hold him responsible just like he ought to hold me, and at the end of it all it must be up to him if he wants to get better. However just the same he could understand my motivation and intention. Perhaps even being held responsible and encouraged to live his life with support and strength could be the foundation which leads to his sobering up, self esteem raise and overall life improvement. My point here is that I cannot know the outcome whether he takes it well or whether it has some positive effect on him, but I do know that I am striving for compassion and acting with compassion, so my intentions are for the best. In this way I see this as a viable option, option A.

Second, I let Max stay. In this scenario he is enable if I do not retain my right to evict him. I must have that kind of monopoly of force, or there will be no ramifications for his actions if they cause serious harm to me or my loved ones. So if he stays he know that if he fucks up too bad, he's out on his ass. Then, since I am making a sacrifice for him, he must uphold the responsibility of receiving that sacrifice. If he is to stay in my house, he has to work with me to keep his independent life stable and on track as well as work towards understanding the root causes of his addiction so that he can kick the habit. Personally I would also like him to make a serious attempt at NA as well, and never use in the house. If he needs a fix he needs to go to a harm reduction center if able, if not he just needs to speak with me, I am understanding and will make try my best to give harm reduction given my limited expertise. These are my boundaries and expectations of Max, given that I am helping him out and giving him major support. If he violates these expectations, he will be kicked out. I must hold him responsible for his actions. These actions are motivated by compassion, my ultimate goal would be to instill compassion, which would mean being a huge part in the recovery of a dear loved one as I strive to bring joy into their life so that they may best exercise good-will. I see this as an equally viable option, option B.

Given that both options when motivated by compassion work, the choice is made not on ethical grounds but on the grounds of personal preference. I will undertake a serious moral duty if the situation demands it for option B. Or I will set a proper and ethical boundary if the situation demands it for option A. My point of all this is that compassion is the highest good because it is an end in itself, Any action undertaken with compassion leads me (and by me I mean only me, since that is all I have autonomy over) towards manifesting more compassion in the world, more kindness, which is a product of love and joy. I can choose to do either. This is the nature of the objective good. You can run an infinite amount of permutations on this scenario, if I choose to act with compassion for every one of them, I will always make sure I am being morally right. This is the best we can hope for out of morality, the ability to direct our actions towards a morally good direction. What other people do is fundamentally up to them. regardless of what laws or commandments they may be given. True ethics are not about making other people be good, but how each and every one of us individually can be good.

I hope this answer satisfies you, and illuminates better my point on compassion being the highest good. I really enjoyed your scenario thank you for your thoughts. If you have any other thoughts I'd love to discuss this further.

 

[anagram.nagaram]

What IS right or wrong but a mutually agreed upon thing?
It's a result of being in this .... place. This universe works in bouncing stuff around. Waves. Waves need poles. Like north and South Pole. Why is the North Pole even „up"? What IS up?

As such, how to answer this question from within the system?

The answer is both and neither.

Do you think it is possible that right/wrong transcends humanity like other laws of nature?

 

[Carbon]

I think that the concept of morality is an abstract concept created by humans, and because of that, can never be objective.

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

Still waiting on objective moralists to outline the objective morals.

Christianity : - )

it is THE moral system, pagan must adhere to nature, watch wolf devour small sheep, accept it is 'natural', Christian can watch this and firmly say that it is not good

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

Christianity : - )

it is THE moral system, pagan must adhere to nature, watch wolf devour small sheep, accept it is 'natural', Christian can watch this and firmly say that it is not good

Which part of Christianity, though?
Do I need to stop mixing fabrics and eating shellfish because it is morally objectionable?

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

Christianity : - )

it is THE moral system, pagan must adhere to nature, watch wolf devour small sheep, accept it is 'natural', Christian can watch this and firmly say that it is not good

he has just been told that there will be no more blood sacrifices and that the garden of eden will return with time

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

Which part of Christianity, though?
Do I need to stop mixing fabrics and eating shellfish because it is morally objectionable?

Orthodox Christianity is the correct part

supposedly the two mixed fabrics (wool and linen specifically woven together in one garment) were used in a priest or other important persons attire, so it's similar reasoning as to why you shouldn't wear a priests collar, this law has also since been annuled by Jesus Christ after he overrode the old covenant - as for shellfish it is much the same with Jesus Christ overriding the old covenant but if you want some particular reasoning as to why pre-Christ jews used to avoid it, it is because they were considered 'non kosher' for symbolic reasons of obedience, there was nothing about shellfish being sinful, just not listening to God is sinful, therefore eating foods that he has proscribed to not be eaten is sinful, as such when the avoidance of certain foods was annulled (it's in Acts i believe, don't know what part) they were referred to as the annulment of 'burdens'

hope this clears it up a bit 4 u

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

Orthodox Christianity is the correct part

supposedly the two mixed fabrics (wool and linen specifically woven together in one garment) were used in a priest or other important persons attire, so it's similar reasoning as to why you shouldn't wear a priests collar, this law has also since been annuled by Jesus Christ after he overrode the old covenant - as for shellfish it is much the same with Jesus Christ overriding the old covenant but if you want some particular reasoning as to why pre-Christ jews used to avoid it, it is because they were considered 'non kosher' for symbolic reasons of obedience, there was nothing about shellfish being sinful, just not listening to God is sinful, therefore eating foods that he has proscribed to not be eaten is sinful, as such when the avoidance of certain foods was annulled (it's in Acts i believe, don't know what part) they were referred to as the annulment of 'burdens'

hope this clears it up a bit 4 u

Why do Orthodox Christians get morality right, then? Is it because they interpreted God's word better than anybody else? What about Gnostic Christians?

 

[Still a Youth]

>mores are the accepted moral standards of a group
>mores exist objectively
>therefore, morality, in some sense, exists objectively.

 

[Lord Adolf Kalki-Wotanson]

Why do Orthodox Christians get morality right, then? Is it because they interpreted God's word better than anybody else? What about Gnostic Christians?

'interpret' more like kept true to, there is nothing really to interpret, people read it wrong, fail to read it or lie or they don't

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

'interpret' more like kept true to, there is nothing really to interpret, people read it wrong, fail to read it or lie or they don't

Then how come Orthodox Christians don't read every gospel that used to be in the bible? Why do they read the Catholic version that edited what was or was not included in the Bible?