Morality: Where do you get yours?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't think something has to be universal to be objective.

Could you elaborate on that? I'd like to clean up the language to hopefully reach consensus.

[genkaus]

I disagree with that God is not proven to exist. But I think we all acknowledge higher morality then the base morality (don't steal, don't hurt others...) etc, and we do that when we see heroism in movies for example. The heroism in many movies is harder to imitate and follow, then the religious morality your talking about, but we still acknowledge the high honor and morality within that.

No, not necessarily. I often find myself rooting for the villain.

Ofcourse morality is linked to our experience, but I talked about it in another thread, that even when we are wrong about issues, it doesn't mean it's totally divorced from God's morality, but that there is more correct view we are not twisted from.

That is the error of idealism. Rather than considering the notion that the correct view does not exist yet, but we are getting to it slowly, it argues that the correct view exists and we have a corrupted version of it. This idea is the basis for the supposed inherently sinful nature of humans.

Also, just because something is not universal, doesn't mean there is no right or wrong answer. For example, killing apostates is advocated by both overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars. Yet we can say it is wrong in a definitive conclusive matter.

If we go by universal, some people don't acknowledge morality at all. Should you then do away with your morality just because some others don't?

At the end, to me, morality makes sense when there is an eternal basis to it and it's linked to that eternal basis, and that possible levels of morality, even ones beyond our capabilities, are encompassed by this eternal basis.

The error in your argument is the requirement of universality. Facts and truths about reality are not universal, why should morality, which guides our actions in that context, be so?

[Mystic]

I don't think something has to be universal to be objective.

Could you elaborate on that? I'd like to clean up the language to hopefully reach consensus.

I think there is too many things we disagree upon, but there is a correct objective answer to it.

I will give you an example. Killing someone for leaving the true religion. Most of us will see that is wrong. How Muslim scholars see it as right and teach that it must done.

Do you believe there is no objective answer to this, just because it's not universally accepted?

[genkaus]

It would seem that any ethical system claiming to be objective must meet certain criteria. I have put forward a list of such criteria. Would anyone care to add to or qualify the following list?

Criteria for a Universal Moral Standard (UMS):

Identifies a universally accepted value.
Defines who qualifies as a moral agent.
Provides a means for moral agents to recognize moral choices and obligations.
Serves as an effective guide for directing the moral agent toward achieving the accepted valued.
Applies at all times and to all choices relevant to creating and preserving the accepted value.
Rejection of the universal moral standard invariably undermines the accepted value.

This seems a little inspired by what I wrote about morality. Is it?

---

Let's see you argument one by one.

It would seem that any ethical system claiming to be objective must meet certain criteria. I have put forward a list of such criteria. Would anyone care to add to or qualify the following list?

Criteria for a Universal Moral Standard (UMS):

You make an unjustified shift from objective to universal here. As Mystic pointed out, that is a mistake. Objective means based on facts. Universal means something that applies to all places at all times. Facts are not necessarily true at all places or at all times.

Identifies a universally accepted value.

This would be your greatest challenge. A universally accepted value would be accepted by every person who ever lived and would ever live. There is no known value that fills the criteria.
one way to get around it is presenting a value that should be accepted by everyone and proving that those who don't are being irrational. That would require you to have a rational justification for this value.

Defines who qualifies as a moral agent.
Provides a means for moral agents to recognize moral choices and obligations.
Serves as an effective guide for directing the moral agent toward achieving the accepted valued.
Applies at all times and to all choices relevant to creating and preserving the accepted value.
Rejection of the universal moral standard invariably undermines the accepted value.

These are more or less okay, except for the prior assumption of universality.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This seems a little inspired by what I wrote about morality. Is it?

Started writing this before I read your post, but then altered it to incorporate points made by you. You deserved a hat-tip. Sorry.

If I'm not mistaken your approach seems to build on Ayn Rand's objectivism and I see room for much common ground here, being a libertarian myself.

---

This would be your greatest challenge. A universally accepted value would be accepted by every person who ever lived and would ever live. There is no known value that fills the criteria. One way to get around it is presenting a value that should be accepted by everyone and proving that those who don't are being irrational.

I’ve always felt that Aristotle was onto something with his idea that happiness is the good that all desire, although as I remember he came to that conclusion empirically. I strongly suspect that it comes down to the choice: rejecting or affirming the very idea of morality and tacitly accepting the implications of that choice.

[genkaus]

Started writing this before I read your post, but then altered it to incorporate points made by you. You deserved a hat-tip. Sorry.

If I'm not mistaken your approach seems to build on Ayn Rand's objectivism and I see room for much common ground here, being a libertarian myself.

More or less, though there are quite a few points on which I diverge.

I’ve always felt that Aristotle was onto something with his idea that happiness is the good that all desire, although as I remember he came to that conclusion empirically. I strongly suspect that it comes down to the choice: rejecting or affirming the very idea of morality and tacitly accepting the implications of that choice.

No actually, Aristotle didn't. If he had, then Hume's is-ought argument wouldn't have had any weight.

[AthiestAtheist]

I get my morality from "it". It tells me what to do sometimes.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I get my morality from "it". It tells me what to do sometimes.

"it"? You don't mean this "It" I hope?

[AthiestAtheist]

I have no idea what that is, but it's as creepy as fuck.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I have no idea what that is, but it's as creepy as fuck.

It's from a famous horror movie. In the movie, the clown was named "It".