Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is Morality Objective?

Is Morality Objective?
(10-30-2022, 10:19 PM)TinyDave Wrote:
(10-23-2022, 09:29 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: A legal fiction, ofc.  There's nothing an adult can do with an ak, for example, that a child couldn't.  No offense an adult can commit that a minor cannot (and so, sometimes, we try minors as adults).  

There is an actus reus and a mens rea.
Guilty action and a guilty mind.
This is a nonsense, you are a poe.
The point of the question is to offer people an opportunity to make objective assertions, if any can be made.

In this case, ideas about a lack of intent rather than a lack of ability, and it's relationship to our mental development over time.  This is an objective assertion about the nature of a moral agent which is then modifying in an objective calculation of desert.  I could add asserted or alleged before every use of the term until the end of time but it's unweildy.  I also think this is the case. If it -is-, though, or even if we so much as truly believe it is...then it does become a bit odd to see us reject moral objectivity while we assert morally objective terms, and with some insistence, no less. I chalk it up to the term having been poisoned, rather than this rejection being a genuine reflection of our general beliefs on the matter.
The following 1 user Likes Rhythmcs's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
What about the requirement that a subjective expectation of privacy be manifested regarding 4th Amendment stuff?  Sounds like an  objective measure of the subjective.  That's confusing.
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
I suppose it might be if we're mixing the terms use between legality and morality, but, ofc, not in mere reality, where a subjective appraisal of violation is not necessary for an objective descriptive of violation. Obviously, this clears up everything.

Womp womp.

So, what do you think, can a statement be truth apt? How about moral statements, are they, or can they be, truth apt?
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 02:56 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote:
(10-30-2022, 10:19 PM)TinyDave Wrote: There is an actus reus and a mens rea.
Guilty action and a guilty mind.
This is a nonsense, you are a poe.
The point of the question is to offer people an opportunity to make objective assertions, if any can be made.

In this case, ideas about a lack of intent rather than a lack of ability, and it's relationship to our mental development over time.  This is an objective assertion about the nature of a moral agent which is then modifying in an objective calculation of desert.  I could add asserted or alleged before every use of the term until the end of time but it's unweildy.  I also think this is the case.  If it -is-, though, or even if we so much as truly believe it is...then it does become a bit odd to see us reject moral objectivity while we assert morally objective terms, and with some insistence, no less.  I chalk it up to the term having been poisoned, rather than this rejection being a genuine reflection of our general beliefs on the matter.

Intent and ability are totally separate things.
I don't really understand your argument, this is because to act as an objective agent necessarily means that there is no subjectivity which means that there is no moral element. As described by you.
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
The question, the argument, if you prefer.... is whether or not these assessments are something more, for example, than convenient legal fictions. Is it true that a child cannot commit a crime because of some fact about children, or is it true that children cannot commit crimes because of some fact about the society writing those laws, or a fact about -another- moral agent apprehending (considering) those children?

It's a given, in any case, that each agent possesses subjectivity and that subjectivity exists. As I said, I think it's true that, at some point, children are not capable of doing the thing we call a crime with those added caveats - and, ofc, some adults too. That this is -not- just a fact about our societies or the people making the calls. Thus, that this is objective (though, the categorically objective may yet be false - which I guess we could get to depending on where we go from here).
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 09:22 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: I suppose it might be if we're mixing the terms use between legality and morality, but, ofc, not in mere reality, where a subjective appraisal of violation is not necessary for an objective descriptive of violation.  Obviously, this clears up everything.

Womp womp.

Clearly moral statements are subjective. To those that believe in them.
For example, I find it appalling that the judgement re Row v Wade is actually being debated. 

Quote:[quote Rhythmc" pid='382526' dateline='1667769750']
So, what do you think, can a statement be truth apt?  How about moral statements, are they, or can they be, truth apt?

No, I don't believe a statement be truth. And as above moral statements are subjective.
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 02:56 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote:
(10-30-2022, 10:19 PM)TinyDave Wrote: There is an actus reus and a mens rea.
Guilty action and a guilty mind.
This is a nonsense, you are a poe.
The point of the question is to offer people an opportunity to make objective assertions, if any can be made.

This is interesting. 
The topic of moral assertations.
Tell more more about this please.
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 10:27 PM)TinyDave Wrote:
(11-06-2022, 09:22 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: I suppose it might be if we're mixing the terms use between legality and morality, but, ofc, not in mere reality, where a subjective appraisal of violation is not necessary for an objective descriptive of violation.  Obviously, this clears up everything.

Womp womp.

Clearly moral statements are subjective. To those that believe in them.
For example, I find it appalling that the judgement re Row v Wade is actually being debated. 

Quote:[quote Rhythmc" pid='382526' dateline='1667769750']
So, what do you think, can a statement be truth apt?  How about moral statements, are they, or can they be, truth apt?

No, I don't believe a statement be truth. And as above moral statements are subjective.
If moral statements cannot be truth apt, then they cannot be subjective.  Subjectivist moral statements, at least in their fullest expression, are those statements which are truth apt, and true, of a given subject.


(11-06-2022, 10:32 PM)TinyDave Wrote:
(11-06-2022, 02:56 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: The point of the question is to offer people an opportunity to make objective assertions, if any can be made.

This is interesting. 
The topic of moral assertations.
Tell more more about this please.
There wouldn't be much to tell if these statements can't be truth apt, other than we're wrong about all of them when we think so, including relativist and subjectivist statements, as fellow cognitive assertions to objectivist statements.

If so, why? Are no statements truth apt, or is this a special class of statement in their inability to describe any truth?
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 10:36 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: If moral statements cannot be truth apt, then they cannot be subjective.  Subjectivist moral statements, at least in their fullest expression, are those statements which are truth apt, and true, of a given subject.

You've made that argument that truths are subjective....

I would argue that observations are subjective and are subject to interpretation.

(11-06-2022, 10:36 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote:
(11-06-2022, 10:32 PM)TinyDave Wrote: This is interesting. 
The topic of moral assertations.
Tell more more about this please.
There wouldn't be much to tell if these statements can't be truth apt, other than we're wrong about all of them when we think so, including relativist and subjectivist statements, as fellow cognitive assertions to objectivist statements.

If so, why?  Are no statements truth apt, or is this a special class of statement in their inability to describe any truth?

Your reply is a bit it of a word salad. 

However I will respond;

Why? I don't know. 
There is something in evolutionary biology/psychology that invites us to perceive and interpret truth in our own perceived terms.
All statements of truth are just that, statements, without fact, unless there is evidence that follows.
Everyone's standard of evidence varies.
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 11:27 PM)TinyDave Wrote: You've made that argument that truths are subjective....

I would argue that observations are subjective and are subject to interpretation.
Moral realist, not a subjectivist.  At any rate, observation being subjective does not rule out moral objectivity, but statements being incapable of being truth apt rules out moral objectivity -and- moral subjectivity, as both sets are considered truth apt or cognitive statements.  One, accurately communicated, about the reporting subject..the other, accurately communicated, about the reported object.


Quote:Your reply is a bit it of a word salad. 

However I will respond;

Why? I don't know. 
There is something in evolutionary biology/psychology that invites us to perceive and interpret truth in our own perceived terms.
All statements of truth are just that, statements, without fact, unless there is evidence that follows.
Everyone's standard of evidence varies.
Unless something about biology or psychology makes us completely incapable of reporting facts about which opinions we hold or facts about our environment, then biology/psychology could not be the explanation for why these (or any other statements) cannot be truth apt.

It's 7pm est, 6th of november, 2022. This is a (purportedly) truth apt statement. A (purportedly) objective statement. Does that help clear anything up?
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 11:47 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote:
(11-06-2022, 11:27 PM)TinyDave Wrote: You've made that argument that truths are subjective....

I would argue that observations are subjective and are subject to interpretation.
....  At any rate, observation being subjective does not rule out moral objectivity, 

Yes it does though. 
How can something be both objective and open to interpretation?
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
Because, or so it's contended, though human beings have many flaws and though situations can be complex and difficult to cleanly parse, and though there may be plenty of space in the world for interpretation, it's not impossible for a moral statement to report a fact about a thing itself. As opposed to that purported fact of the object being a misreported fact of the reporting subject, or the reporting subjects society. Subjectivism and relativism, respectively, and the explaination (as subjectivists and relativists would have it) for why the objectivist statements are both truth apt -and- incorrect as stated.

I suppose the simple answer is that the terms, like many terms in any area of study, aren't employed exactly like they are in casual conversation. That you're taking them to mean something else, and perhaps arguing against or addressing that other thing, when using them in this context. Moral objectivity is not moral absolutism, for example. Where there is and can only ever be one answer and no room to interpret or disagree. In objective moral systems, there's as much room for disagreement and interpretation as the collection of facts about the thing allows. In an absolutist context, for example, we might say "stealing bad" and this is simply the end of it and off to the gulag or the hand chopper or the private prison plantation you go. In an objective system, we might want or need to know more about the theft...or, in my earlier example, the fire, before we go doling out judgement. There are other things we may also consider, but that would be the baseline.

Even deeper still, especially when given an exclusively suboptimal decision field, there may not be one objective answer, there must be interpretation and consideration of those relevant facts and circumstances , or else the conclusion..if there is one to be had, cannot be objective. Moral dilemmas like trolley problems being the standard example.
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
Of course, it's not.
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-13-2018, 09:51 AM)exodus Wrote:
(11-13-2018, 04:30 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That's pretty much what I mean. If we're talking about gravity, I can point to the effect and rest assured that your perceptions will mostly coincide with mine; we will see the same stuff fall. It is objective precisely because we all see gravity the same way.

If you have a good grasp of general relativity but I have a classical conception of it, no, we will perceive very different things. One of us perceives the curvature of spacetime, the other one perceives a force pulling the object down. Both of us are having an objective conception, because for both of us gravity is defined in terms of observable objects, but one us has a more accurate conception.

There's no such thing as down.

Defining Gravity (ft. Physics Girl & MALINDA) | A Capella Science


test
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(duplicated post deleted)
test
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
The short answer:
No.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. 
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
The following 1 user Likes Chas's post:
  • Bucky Ball
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
Philosophy is hard. 

But the Dead Mexicans thread here certainly does suggest that different cultures have different views on morality.
test
The following 1 user Likes pythagorean's post:
  • Bucky Ball
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 02:56 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote:
(10-30-2022, 10:19 PM)TinyDave Wrote: There is an actus reus and a mens rea.
Guilty action and a guilty mind.
This is a nonsense, you are a poe.
The point of the question is to offer people an opportunity to make objective assertions, if any can be made.

In this case, ideas about a lack of intent rather than a lack of ability, and it's relationship to our mental development over time.  This is an objective assertion about the nature of a moral agent which is then modifying in an objective calculation of desert.  I could add asserted or alleged before every use of the term until the end of time but it's unweildy.  I also think this is the case.  If it -is-, though, or even if we so much as truly believe it is...then it does become a bit odd to see us reject moral objectivity while we assert morally objective terms, and with some insistence, no less.  I chalk it up to the term having been poisoned, rather than this rejection being a genuine reflection of our general beliefs on the matter.

Moral objectivity is not real. It assumes everyone shares the same values, will act the same in dilemmas, or will reach the same conclusions in difficult situations. I will also add that my personal view is that "morals" come from religion (gods) and "ethics" come from humans. But aside from that, morals/ethics can only be subjective. Both change over time. And there are no hard and fast rules that establish them.

They are simply what people of a time agree with at the time. At some times, it made perfect sense for some people to be sacrificed to the gods, enslaved, conquered for territory or wealth or national reputation, etc.

And in the future, there will some things we do today that will baffle our descendants. I've read some articles by people who think keeping dogs and cats as pets is a form of animal slavery. Maybe a century from now, the idea will seem abhorrent.

So there really isn't such a thing as "moral objectivity".
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-06-2022, 10:22 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: The question, the argument, if you prefer.... is whether or not these assessments are something more, for example, than convenient legal fictions.  Is it true that a child cannot commit a crime because of some fact about children, or is it true that children cannot commit crimes because of some fact about the society writing those laws, or a fact about -another- moral agent apprehending (considering) those children?

It's a given, in any case, that each agent possesses subjectivity and that subjectivity exists.  As I said, I think it's true that, at some point, children are not capable of doing the thing we call a crime with those added caveats - and, ofc, some adults too.  That this is -not- just a fact about our societies or the people making the calls.  Thus, that this is objective (though, the categorically objective may yet be false - which I guess we could get to depending on where we go from here).

Children can commit crimes (a legal definition of an event), but are not considered punishable for them because they lack the full mental development to understand the consequences of their acts. If a child hits another with a baseball bat in anger, they probably don't understand death. If I hit one the same way as an average adult, I probably do. We graduate in mental levels as we mature.

As a kid, we played with cap guns. You pointed them at another kid and pulled the trigger. BANG! No harm. But not all guns use caps. Some are real, and the difference might not be obvious to a child. We don't send them to prison for that lack of understanding.

When I was about 12, my same-age and loved male cousin drowned. Mom sat us kids down and tried to explain what "death" meant. My cousin was being raised by my paternal grandparents, whom we visited every year. When we visited that Summer, I still somehow expected my cousin to be there. It was a hard and confusing visit. We visited his grave and even then, I still wasn't quite sure about why he was underground. And this comes from someone who figured out the Santa Claus myth at 8. Some realities are harder to understand than others...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
I have often wondered if someone could suggest an example of this alleged "moral objectivity."  What is this supposed piece of morality that all cultures throughout time have agreed was either right or wrong.

But I never asked the question because I guess I just didn't care enough about the subject.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-05-2023, 05:29 AM)Minimalist Wrote: I have often wondered if someone could suggest an example of this alleged "moral objectivity."  What is this supposed piece of morality that all cultures throughout time have agreed was either right or wrong.

But I never asked the question because I guess I just didn't care enough about the subject.

If there was one culture that just happened to be located at the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven sets earth and hell, wouldn't the standards of that culture provide an absolute standard when judging the morality of cattle rustling?

And if the devil is the judge of western culture, isn't the devil providing an absolute standard of some sort?
test
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-05-2023, 06:02 AM)pythagorean Wrote:
(11-05-2023, 05:29 AM)Minimalist Wrote: I have often wondered if someone could suggest an example of this alleged "moral objectivity."  What is this supposed piece of morality that all cultures throughout time have agreed was either right or wrong.

But I never asked the question because I guess I just didn't care enough about the subject.

If there was one culture that just happened to be located at the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven sets earth and hell, wouldn't the standards of that culture provide an absolute standard when judging the morality of cattle rustling?

And if the devil is the judge of western culture, isn't the devil providing an absolute standard of some sort?

LOL!

Well, that pretty much sets you in the "weird and crazy" religious camp.  

There is no "Axis Mundi".  Did you have one in mind?  Please suggest it.

"IF the devil..."?  Let's think about your assumption that the devil is the judge of Western Culture.  Why "Western"?  Why "judge of"?  For that matter, why would "the devil"  provide an "absolute standard" that your deity cannot?  

Your post was entirely laughable... And you are quickly becoming "ingorable".
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-05-2023, 06:21 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(11-05-2023, 06:02 AM)pythagorean Wrote: If there was one culture that just happened to be located at the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven sets earth and hell, wouldn't the standards of that culture provide an absolute standard when judging the morality of cattle rustling?

And if the devil is the judge of western culture, isn't the devil providing an absolute standard of some sort?

LOL!

Well, that pretty much sets you in the "weird and crazy" religious camp.  

There is no "Axis Mundi".  Did you have one in mind?  Please suggest it.

"IF the devil..."?  Let's think about your assumption that the devil is the judge of Western Culture.  Why "Western"?  Why "judge of"?  For that matter, why would "the devil"  provide an "absolute standard" that your deity cannot?  

Your post was entirely laughable...  And you are quickly becoming "ingorable".

As you wish.

You are free to ignore all of my posts if your culture finds them disturbing.

By the way, I'm an atheist. I don't have any deities.

I was just asking a hypothetical question.

We can get into the exact coordinates later. (Likely something to do with plate tectonics.)

Laughter is a good thing.

In fact, the devil makes me laugh.

Others go into a satanic panic.

test
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-05-2023, 06:37 AM)pythagorean Wrote:
(11-05-2023, 06:21 AM)Cavebear Wrote: LOL!

Well, that pretty much sets you in the "weird and crazy" religious camp.  

There is no "Axis Mundi".  Did you have one in mind?  Please suggest it.

"IF the devil..."?  Let's think about your assumption that the devil is the judge of Western Culture.  Why "Western"?  Why "judge of"?  For that matter, why would "the devil"  provide an "absolute standard" that your deity cannot?  

Your post was entirely laughable...  And you are quickly becoming "ingorable".

As you wish.

You are free to ignore all of my posts if your culture finds them disturbing.

By the way, I'm an atheist. I don't have any deities.

I was just asking a hypothetical question.

We can get into the exact coordinates later. 

Laughter is a good thing.

In fact, the devil makes me laugh.

Others go into a satanic panic.

I don't represent a "culture". I speak for myself only.

Your reply did not answer any of my questions to you. That is not "discussion". I find it interesting that you say you are an atheist. Most atheists don't offer "the devil" as a being to be considered in the real world.

"We can get into the exact coordinates later". I assume that relates to "Axis Mundi". You really need to explain that immediately. Mostly, because it seems pretty weird and theistic (since you say you are an atheist).

Yes laughter is a good thing. I am laughing now. And without a "satanic panic"...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Is Morality Objective?
(11-05-2023, 07:08 AM)Cavebear Wrote: I don't represent a "culture".  I speak for myself only.

Your reply did not answer any of my questions to you.  That is not "discussion".  I find it interesting that you say you are an atheist.  Most atheists don't offer "the devil" as a being to be considered in the real world.  

"We can get into the exact coordinates later".  I assume that relates to "Axis Mundi".  You really need to explain that immediately.  Mostly, because it seems pretty weird and theistic (since you say you are an atheist).  

Yes laughter is a good thing.  I am laughing now.  And without a "satanic panic"...

Sure, I married a woman from Catholic culture more than a quarter century ago.

She told me lots of stories about her childhood, and the two fundamental stories about her religion.

That doesn't mean that I'm not an atheist.

Now, she can't give you the coordinates on Google earth. Computers are not her thing.
test
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)