-->
@TwoMan
"Like you, I don't believe that morality itself is objective."
Hypothetical question.
Would you think hydrating your child with hydrogen peroxide is moral/immoral and how would you arrive at that assessment?
Can Morality Be Objective Without God?
Posts
Total:
438
-->
@TwoMan
Then it falls to fallaneze to present his case for an objective moral standard.
-->
@TwoMan
I can determine good intentions within myself. People can convey their intentions without doing anything and we can still make an assessment of whether those intentions are good.
I agree that a standard must exist that we're comparing the morality of something to, but I don't agree that we must first be aware of this standard before we can determine whether something is moral or immoral. If you brutally kill a puppy in front of an 8 year old I have no question they would be morally outraged or mortified at your behavior. An 8 year old doesnt need to first go through an academic exercise where they build their moral foundation. It's intuitive. Why can't we know of facts using our intuition?
-->
@secularmerlin
Innocent means not having committed the offense. Guilty means having committed the offense.
-->
@MagicAintReal
I tend to base my judgements (personal opinions) about morality on human harm versus wellbeing (something that can be objectively measured in some cases but not in others and which is in any case an arbitrary standard) so hydrating a human being with hydrogen peroxide (an objectively harmful act) would be immoral (based on my subjective opinion).
-->
@secularmerlin
Inflicting a penalty on a person who committed no offense is immoral.
-->
@secularmerlin
Why is the well being of the others toward whom you are acting (morality) an arbitrary standard and when is well being NOT objective measured?
-->
@Fallaneze
What makes something an offense? What non subjective standard do we use to determine that something is an offense and what are we offending against? Without an agreed upon standard this does not help us determin innocence/guilt and any agreed upon standard would almost certainly be subjective.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm actually more interested in moral realism versus moral non-realism. The only thing that matters is which one is more rational to believe.
-->
@secularmerlin
That is beyond the scope of moral realism. If moral statements are factually true, moral realism is affirmed. Thus, if "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is factually true, moral realism is affirmed.
-->
@MagicAintReal
Physical well being is objectively measurable mental well being less so. The well being of others is an arbitrary standard. If it is what we agree upon as pur standard we can make objective statements about morality based on that standard but we could just as easily use a two thousand year old book written by goat herders as our standard. Some people do.
-->
@Fallaneze
That is a useless distinction without some standard for determining guilt/innocence or we can never be certain that we are not punishing innocent people without some way of determining guilt/innocence.
Conning full circle it is factually accurate that I prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla so the difference between the question "what is moral" and "what is the best ice cream flavor" has not been proven any different.
-->
@secularmerlin
"The well being of others is an arbitrary standard."
Except that the definition of morality is our behavior towards others, so if the others towards whom we behave aren't the standard then there's no concept of morality at all.
"we could just as easily use a two thousand year old book written by goat herders as our standard. Some people do."
Except that the old book doesn't as accurately consider the others toward whom we behave, because well being wasn't as understood then as it is today...in fact much of the well being of others is ignored by many of those books.
-->
@MagicAintReal
That does not stop many people from basing their morality on such a book to such a degree that they find harming others who disagree to be moral. That I would tend to agree with your assessment of morality does not make it any less subjective.
-->
@secularmerlin
Whether or not those who base their morality on factual errors are impeded by using well being as a standard does not remove the standard's objectivity. Also, you tend to agree with me, because I can provide facts for why considering the well being of those toward whom i behave, or towards whom I use morality, is not arbitrary, in fact, necessary."That does not stop many people from basing their morality on such a book to such a degree that they find harming others who disagree to be moral. That I would tend to agree with your assessment of morality does not make it any less subjective."
-->
@secularmerlin
By determining whether they committed an offense or not. Even if offenses are subjectively determined, the statement itself can still be factually true.
The thing in question is the proposition.
-->
@Fallaneze
By determining whether chocolate is better than vanilla or not. Even if chocolate being better than vanilla is subjectively determined, the statement itself can still be factually true.
The thing in question is the proposition.
-->
@MagicAintReal
An objective standard would remain true even if there were no humans to observe it. That humans regard harming humans immoral does not make harm the objective standard. And again I do not disagree with the utility of this moral standard but utility does not equal objectivity.
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah but if we're discussing morality between humans, we have standard that always remains true, no?
-->
@secularmerlin
"Chocolate is better than vanilla" is different than "I like chocolate better than vanilla." Moral statements don't refer to the attitude of the person making the moral judgements, they refer to the truth content of the statement. The statement, if true, is either a fact or an opinion.
-->
@MagicAintReal
No. We have constantly evolving standards. That makes them the opposite of always true.they are in fact only provisionally true.
-->
@secularmerlin
Aren't those constantly evolving standards just evolving with our understanding of well being?
-->
@Fallaneze
"He is guilty" is different than "I believe he is guilty" without a standard with which to determine what qualifies as immoral we are just referencing a personal attitude about the subject of guilt/innocence. Now again please present your non subjective standard.
-->
@MagicAintReal
Are they? If I think violent video games are harmful to a young person's psychy and you disagree how do we go about determining which of us is correct if indeed either of us is?
-->
@secularmerlin
"Are they? If I think violent video games are harmful to a young person's psychy and you disagree how do we go about determining which of us is correct if indeed either of us is?"
Psychological, neurological, and behavioral assessments of a young person's psychy from video games.
-->
@MagicAintReal
I'm sorry but my last question is actually beside the point. Again I apologize. Unfortunately the issue is not what is harmful but why harm should be our standard at all. What makes promoting wellbeing moral? What makes preventing harm immoral? I submit to you that it is the fact that humans find it immoral (a subjective opinion).
-->
@secularmerlin
Having nothing tangible to compare something to does not mean that the truth of the matter is subjective. All we need to do is determine whether a moral statement like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is better explained as neither true nor untrue, an opinion-based truth, or a fact-based truth.
-->
@Fallaneze
Innocent of what? By what standard? What if punnishing an innocent person has the ney effect of discouraging immoral behavior? Do we then measure it by the immorality of punishing the innocent or by the measure of the moral good derived from preventing future immorality?
And really none of that matters unless we know whether the thing the inoccentbperson is accused of is even an immoral act.
Now please present your non subjective standard unless this has just been one long non sequitur.
-->
@secularmerlin
It's a principle. We needn't get into the specifics of what constitutes an offense in order for it to be factually true.
-->
@Fallaneze
If you brutally kill a puppy in front of an 8 year old
In certain societies it would simply be lunch.