Objective Morality, Anyone?

[tor]

So objective morals don't exist.

As in somehow existing independently outside of conscious observers? Absolutely not.

Is bullying right or wrong?

[Mudhammam]

As in somehow existing independently outside of conscious observers? Absolutely not.

Is bullying right or wrong?

I'd say in most instances it's wrong because I value the feelings of other people, especially those who do nothing to invite that attention upon themselves.

[tor]

Is bullying right or wrong?

I'd say in most instances it's wrong because I value the feelings of other people, especially those who do nothing to invite that attention upon themselves.

If there is a group of bullies how are you gonna explain to them that it's wrong without it being just a morally relativistic opinion?

[Mudhammam]

I'd say in most instances it's wrong because I value the feelings of other people, especially those who do nothing to invite that attention upon themselves.

If there is a group of bullies how are you gonna explain to them that it's wrong without it being just a morally relativistic opinion?

The best I can do is try to explain empathy and ask them to exhibit some, if they're capable. If not, then they're likely sociopaths. Analogously, it would probably be like explaining the importance of rational, scientific thinking to a Creationist.

[max-greece]

Objective morality Vs Relative morality.

IMHO - false dichotomy.

Humanity appears to have evolved to develop as a social creature. In order for that to work we have inherited a few tendencies that are probably instinctive.

These would include empathy, reciprocation and a basic sense of fairness.

Armed with those fundamental properties we develop morality in societies.

This provides for wide-scale similarities and marked differences.

I know of no society that condones murder or extreme violence amongst it societal members, nor one that encourages stealing of property.

All societies have provision for exceptional circumstances to the above, of course, usually during times of war but rarely relating to members of its own society except, possibly, during civil war.

When it comes down to other issues, possibly less fundamental, then relative values kick in. Society's response to things such as slavery, women's rights, treatment of minorities, homosexuality and so on and so forth vary widely.

The main tool throughout history for undermining morality has been religion. Its primary method is either to "define in stone" certain rules as coming from its deity, and/or ostracising groups that do not conform to its rules (which are not moral any more than any other religion).

Morality, it appears, pre-dates religion by about a million years in our own branch of evolution.

Morality (or possibly some kind of proto-morality) also appears to exist in other species.

In conclusion, therefore, my take is that morality is relative but built upon inherited tendencies that lead to certain aspects of it being pretty much absolute.

[tor]

So morality is just opinion and personal preferences?

[Mudhammam]

So morality is just opinion and personal preferences?

How do you arrive there? Is the sensation of pain simply opinion or preference? Or are there objective, measureable states of reality that underly all our subjective perceptions? That's the position I tend to take.

Hume said we cannot derive an ought from an is. But he was wrong because we all do. That's where morality enters. Since there is presumably an objective reality that we are all a part of, our subjective perceptions are likely to agree about many of the basic principles in which morality is grounded.

[xpastor]

What is objective morality?

The only explanation that I've seen that is even remotely applicable is the Christian idea that whatever god says is moral is moral. I don't think that is objective morality (since god's directives change) as much as it is absolute obedience. Communities and societies define, and many times re-define, what constitutes moral behavior. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a community or society that did not modify its moral standards over time, assuming they lasted more than a week.

I think that these days, the term is mostly used to reinforce the laughable idea that without god, men would become "immoral beasts."

The thing is that beasts are not immoral. Each species has its own code of behavior. It's been shown that many species (including our own) have a couple of inborn evolutionary adaptations, namely empathy and a "debt calculator" which often result in philanthropic or other-regarding actions. The phrase debt calculator is from Dawkins; it involves keeping track of favors to repay them but also guarding against freeloaders who take without giving.

So objective morality is probably not an accurate phrase, but innate or species-wide morality is meaningful. Not to say there are not a few rare individuals who seem to be born without the appropriate neural circuits just as some people are born with visible physical deformities.

Of course, for humans at least, there are also culturally imparted morals, which can be worse than the inborn morality (e.g., overwhelming empathy with a notion that Jews or blacks are evil) or better in that empathy is extended to a wider range of people. I believe that we also (like chimpanzees) have an innate suspicion of individuals from outside our own group. The Enlightenment of the 18th century had a great deal to do with extending our ideas of empathy and fair play to all of humanity.

[Tonus]

So objective morals don't exist.

That seems to be the case. With few exceptions I think we can describe scenarios where an action considered to be immoral nearly all of the time could be considered moral. Actions such as murder or rape would be the most difficult to do that for; I can't think of anything outside of "do this or the universe will blink out of existence."

Ironically, many of those who claim that objective morality exists believe that they get those absolute rules from a creature that has condoned many of the actions that we would find most difficult to rationalize as moral. Go figure.

[bennyboy]

In the end, I there clearly ARE objective systems of morality (are at least objective mores). What is subjective is the decision to favor those systems over others.