Objective Morals+

[Darkstar]

I'm not a believer in objective morals myself, but I don't see why an objective morality couldn't have differing rules for differing contexts and still be objective.

This is what I think...sort of. I cannot say that I am speaking for John V, but my own ideas on the subject (or perhaps thoughts) go something like this:

First of all, "god's" morals are certainly not objectively true. So, let's look at another system. Things happen, and although I said I was a utilitarian a few days ago in the "A small census" thread, after doing some reading on the subject (for uni, no less), I no longer think my views are strictly utilitarian.

When deciding what is moral, there are certain things taken into consideration. First, there are rights (this being first is entirely arbitrary, by the way). Pure utilitarianism implies that rights may be violated if it helps someone else significantly enough. The idea of rights is ingrained in our (or at least most of our) cultures, but there is an obvious reason behind it besides tradition. Like physical evolution, behavioral evolution confers advantages on those who have them. Those who abandon killing for illegitimate reasons (e.g. possesion) will have that advantage over those who do not. Most people can agree that they would want the right to life and liberty, and so there is the social contract. Enter into society, agree to honor these rights, and yours will (hopefully) be protected.

If someone didn't want to honor the rights of others...they would have none themselves, and would be in dire straights if those they wronged ever sought retribution. This sort of ties into the golden rule in that almost everyone wants the rights, and is (hopefully) willing to respect the rights of others to have their own assured.

Now, when using reason in determining what actions are morally right or wrong, utilitarianism is a good rule of thumb, so long as you keep in mind the "don't take away others' rights" rule.

So, from the above, it is obvious that no set of rules can lead to perfect morality. Does this mean that no objective morals exist? I think that some do, though there are undoubtably some morals that are entirely subjective as well.

Let's look at one of the bible's so called objective morals.
"Thou shalt not kill" seems like a no-brainer (despite the fact that it is repeatedly trampled in the bible), but that aside, it is also clearly incorrect. Let's say you kill someone in self defense, or perhaps take down some serial killer. Would that be wrong? In the instance of the first, one might argue that it is permissable, but should be avoided if possible, and is only permissable if it were an acccident. In the case of the second, one could say that it is only justifiable under the pretenses of preventing more killings. Therefore, killing someone may not be morally wrong depending on the situation.

But surely, what about killing an innocent person? Surely that must always be wrong. And again, there are possible scenarios where it might not be. One of them (the only realistic one I can think of) is Euthanasia. (Voluntary euthanasia, of course!)

eu·tha·na·sia
noun \ˌyü-thə-ˈnā-zh(ē-)ə\
Definition of EUTHANASIA
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

So, by the definition above, would the killing of an innocent person in that matter (with consent) be immoral? I am inclined to think not.
So would we say "Killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy" is an objective moral rule?

Well, first I would step away from the word "rule". The above is kinda wordy, and if there were "rules" pertaining to each and every possible individual situation, then this would be rather bothersome, and kind of defeat the purpose of using reason to find moral truth. If you run into a situation, you need reason and empathy (and perhaps some other undefined thing) to make a good moral judgment...or perhaps you can do so without those things as well. If you can't trust your own moral judgment, then you're out of luck, I guess.

"But wait, isn't saying to use good judgment the same as saying morals are not objective?"

Well, it depends on what is meant by objective and subjective. Does subjective mean purely your opinion with no basis in fact, whereas objective means purely 100% mathematically provable? I think it falls somewhere in between. You can use reason to support many decisions of what is and isn't moral, but it is better to do this on a situational basis than try to follow strict rules.


...I'm now thinking the above was not put eloquently at all, more of a stream of consciousness really. *Sigh* I wasted too much time typing this, might as well post it anyway...

TL;DR: Objective morals are impossible to fit into broad rules, and so perhaps the only "objective" morals are whatever actions cause the best outcome while respecting others' rights (on a situational basis only). Though there are still many entirely subjective morals as well, and even the objectivish ones have some subjectivity in them.