Objective Morality, Anyone?

[truthBtold]

I object to objective morality!!!

[Mister Agenda]

You can have an objective morality in the sense of its rules following from its premises. However, selecting the premises cannot be objective.

For instance, if we could all agree that human flourishing (and agree on the definition of it) is a sound basis for morality, we could afterwards haggle over whether this or that action promotes or degrades or is indifferent to human flourishing; and we could use science to measure the actual effects of various actions.

However, someone who doesn't agree with that basis, or doesn't agree with our definition of it, would be outside of this moral system, and could conceivable have their own which could also objectively follow from their axioms.

[Alex K]

I object to objective morality!!!

What are you, an objectivist?

[Rampant.A.I.]

What is objective morality?

Excellent question and one I always ask any theist who talks about the "Moral Argument."

To me, "objective" means that you can measure it in ways that are not subject to opinion or personal values. Most things I can think of that are objective (temperature, velocity, mass, etc.) can be expressed in mathematical terms. If the room temperature is 60 degrees Fahrenheit, this is an objective measurement. "Gee, it's cold in here" is a subjective evaluation of the temperature.

So how does one plug numbers into a spreadsheet to measure morality?

It also seems like anytime someone says "good" or "bad" with regards to a certain reality, it's a subjective evaluation. Is it "good" that the temperature is forecast to be in the 40s and 50s this week? I think so because the snow will melt. Someone who likes playing in the snow might not think so.

In fact, morality by definition is a values system. Since "objective" means not influenced by values, then isn't "objective morality" an oxy-moron?

Now it's important to note that just because something is "subjective" does not mean all opinions are equal in merit. Some subjective opinions are better supported by logic and objective data. If I say it is "good" that the temperature is rising, I can make use of economic data to show the damage done by the winter storms and express it in objective terms. Consequently, my subjective opinion has an objective basis of support.

This is why we have a justice system. Both sides of a case argue their points and provide evidence for their arguments. The side that has the more persuasive case usually wins.

An example I've used before is a salesman working for me that I deem to be "bad". Of course, he says he's a "good" salesman. So since we both have subjective evaluations, both opinions are equal in merit, right? Not so. I can point to objective data showing zero new customers, zero cross-sells, zero reactivated accounts and zero contribution to my top line. All he has to support his subjective evaluation is his feelings on the matter. Ergo, my case has more support and is a stronger argument.

Morality is subjective but that does not mean "anything goes".

Jeremy Bentham tried "plugging in the numbers" with Hedonic Calculus, attempting to devise a system that would maximize the most good for the largest number of people. Kant tried with moral absolutes.

There are simply no absolutes, and no easy answers. People want an absolute source of morality to refer to, but it remains subjective: We do the best we can. Moral principles are guidelines, but simply can't encompass every possible situation, famous examples being that there
are situations where the only morally acceptable choice is to lie.

[DeistPaladin]

Jeremy Bentham tried "plugging in the numbers" with Hedonic Calculus, attempting to devise a system that would maximize the most good for the largest number of people.

Thank you. Utilitarianism proposed by Bentham is the closest I've seen to a method of crunching the numbers. Overall, I think he had a good grasp on what morality is. However, "the sum of pleasure in the universe" and "the sum of pain in the universe" are pretty abstract and impossible to measure in practice.

I really liked his thinking but there are exceptions to his rule. For example in the movie "Terminator 2", Sarah Conner went on a mission to murder Miles Bennet Dyson before he could invent the AI chip that would lead to the creation of Skynet. Were she to succeed, she would be murdering an innocent man (Dyson had no idea the monster he was going to create as he had commercial applications in mind). However, her action might avert the war, save three billion lives as well as human civilization.

Is murdering one innocent man to save human civilization and three billion lives a bargain? Strictly using Bentham's model, I can't see how the answer wouldn't be "yes" and yet I would have a problem with this.

Morality is a complex issue but that doesn't mean we don't try to understand it nor does it necessarily mean anything goes. Neither is it necessary nor helpful to have some deity do the thinking for us.

[Ryantology]

I really liked his thinking but there are exceptions to his rule. For example in the movie "Terminator 2", Sarah Conner went on a mission to murder Miles Bennet Dyson before he could invent the AI chip that would lead to the creation of Skynet. Were she to succeed, she would be murdering an innocent man (Dyson had no idea the monster he was going to create as he had commercial applications in mind). However, her action might avert the war, save three billion lives as well as human civilization.

Is murdering one innocent man to save human civilization and three billion lives a bargain? Strictly using Bentham's model, I can't see how the answer wouldn't be "yes" and yet I would have a problem with this.

Morality is a complex issue but that doesn't mean we don't try to understand it nor does it necessarily mean anything goes. Neither is it necessary nor helpful to have some deity do the thinking for us.

Terminator 2 is an interesting example, because not only was killing him unnecessary (he understood perfectly well what was going on after Arnold showed his cybernetic arm), but it wouldn't have even worked, hence why they had to go and blow up the Cyberdyne building immediately thereafter; Dyson's work could have been taken up by others (indeed, was, according to the sequels I hate and refuse to acknowledge as canon).

And yet, without Arnold's presence, Sarah had no way to convince Dyson of what his work was going to lead to, so on her own, she had no other legitimate option but to try to kill him.

Ultimately, does "her heart was in the right place" morally justify gunning down an innocent man in cold blood?

[DeistPaladin]

Terminator 2 is an interesting example, because not only was killing him unnecessary...

Did she know that?

As I remember, the only thing the Terminator told her was that Dyson invented the chip. He didn't say what Dyson's motive was. For all she knew, he could have been enthusiastic about creating killer robots for the Pentagon. Her near psychotic rant about "men like you created the atom bomb" indicated that she was doubtful about his motives. Just a question about sci-fi canon.

...Dyson's work could have been taken up by others (indeed, was, according to the sequels I hate and refuse to acknowledge as canon)...

Off topic rant but I remember how I wanted my time back after "Terminator 3". I watched T2 right afterwards, just to take in the contrast (kind of like Star Wars and the prequels). T3 was a study in how not to make a sci fi movie:

• Arnold Schwartzenegger was the greatest actor they had on the set.
  
• Where Skynet's motive was understandable in T2 (the humans paniced and tried to pull the plug and therefore Skynet concluded that all humans were the enemy) the Skynet of T3 just started killing humans just because. It's always better when your villain has a well-understood motive, even when the villain is a machine.
  
• Too many continuity gaffes
  

[Ryantology]

Terminator 2 is an interesting example, because not only was killing him unnecessary...

Did she know that?

As I remember, the only thing the Terminator told her was that Dyson invented the chip. He didn't say what Dyson's motive was. For all she knew, he could have been enthusiastic about creating killer robots for the Pentagon. Her near psychotic rant about "men like you created the atom bomb" indicated that she was doubtful about his motives. Just a question about sci-fi canon.

She didn't know, and as I pointed out, she had no real way to talk him out of it on her own. After all, she had been trying to tell people about what she knew about the future for years, and everybody thought she was crazy.

However, had she managed to convince the Terminator to accompany her on her mission, that would have changed everything (indeed, as it ended up doing). Where Sarah possibly crosses the moral line is that she doesn't even bother attempting to do this. She makes the unilateral decision that only killing Dyson can solve the problem.

mber how I wanted my time back after "Terminator 3". I watched T2 right afterwards, just to take in the contrast (kind of like Star Wars and the prequels). T3 was a study in how not to make a sci fi movie

My disdain for it comes from the simple fact that the second movie pretty much wrapped everything up neatly. There was no need for a continuation of the story, especially when it ultimately invalidates most of what happens in the second movie (after all, the entire Dyson plot involves preventing the nuclear holocaust).

I never even bothered watching the last new one.

[Mudhammam]

OK. let me lay it out.

Objective morality is real? I'd say not. It seems to me that all of our moral judgments are based chiefly on how the event in question makes us feel. I can see no reason to assume there is some set value system with which to judge an action morally better or worse that exists independent of the human mind. It is interesting for me to think that so many people Hold onto their idea of objective morality. At any rate, i just want to see if anyone has a quick argument that could show me what all the fuss is about.

Objective morality is such a stupid concept. Morality has to be written in stone by the finger of God or something to make it "right"? What makes that objective?

[DeistPaladin]

Objective morality is such a stupid concept. Morality has to be written in stone by the finger of God or something to make it "right"? What makes that objective?

By definition, it's not.

Objective must mean not subject to any being's opinions or values. If God exists and offers an opinion on what is moral, consistent with his/her/its values, than by definition, this is a subjective system of morality. This continues to be true no matter how powerful, wise or fair-minded the being in question is. All that changes with Divine Command theory is that we surrender our own judgement to another's.

At this point, the apologist tries to redefine "objective" to include "an outsider's perspective" but this is not how we use the word in any other area of our discourse. For example, if a Supreme Court justice rules on a case, the ruling is not considered "objective" but the court's opinion on the matter. The judge may very well be impartial and fair-minded, and he/she may offer a logically compelling and well-supported case for the ruling, but it is still subjective.

Words must mean what they mean in order for us to have a conversation. We can't just redefine words on the fly like that.

When it comes to Yahweh's morality, apologists love to create contrived definitions in order to fit their argument so that they may work backward to their desired conclusion in an exercise that seems viciously circular. See my quotations below for an example.

StatlerWaldorf knows Yahweh's morality is good. The reason he knows Yahweh's morality is good is because Yahweh is the ultimate standard of goodness. Since Yahweh is the ultimate standard of goodness, that which he commands and does is good. Since everything Yahweh says and does is good, that means we can use him as the ultimate standard of goodness. And since he's the ultimate standard of goodness, that means his morality is good. We know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because...