Objective Morality, Anyone?

[Angrboda]

Thems with the gold, makes the rules.

It's perfectly objective.

[Ryantology]

When the rules governing which behaviors are good and which are evil apply only to certain individuals at certain times under certain circumstances, and the entity creating the rules breaks them whenever he wants because the extent to which the rules apply to you is inversely proportional to your power and knowledge, that is objective morality.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Objective morality. I think that morality needs to be subjective as it requires a basis to operate on. A morality without a basis is a building without its core columns. I don't know how someone would manage to erect such a building, and who knows how it stands. But you know its going to fall.
When aligning my moral compass, my poles are society and history.
Individual morality is dangerous, as its name implies...too personal. I rather have a moral standard that is compatible with others for harmony's sake.

[KichigaiNeko]

I see the thread title and think

"No such thing"

Great idea on paper, but then you add people and it just falls apart.

[Alex K]

Search button. It works.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a topic that has not been discussed on alt.blabla.whatsyourname in the past 25 years, so with that attitude, how can you justify having an active forum at all?

[Tonus]

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."

[Alex K]

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."

Mhm. That's very close to Euthyphros dilemma ( which was written for polytheism, but with such a schizophrenic God, it almost works unchanged ). Either God approves of a deed because it is pious, but then there is a source of morals greater than God and God is therefore not necessary to have objective morality, or a deed is pious by definition if God approves of it, in which case it is not only arbitrary and thus does not provide objective morality, but God has also acted inconsistently in the past and has ordered things which we today find repugnant.

[Tonus]

Yeah, I think it's pretty easy to demonstrate: the Christian accepts that there was a time when it was immoral to work on the Sabbath, and that it was moral to kill a person who worked on the Sabbath. The Christian accepts that today it is NOT immoral to work on the Sabbath, and that it IS immoral to kill someone who happens to perform any work on the Sabbath. Therefore, there are some actions that cannot, in and of themselves, be moral or immoral. Context (in this case, god's command) determines whether an action is moral or not.

[DeistPaladin]

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".

[James2014]

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.

I broadly agree, but I also think that a coherentist approach is also quite useful in evaluating the truth value of competing ethical systems. In whatever way a set of ethics is said to exist, it must have logical consistency to be true, even if that truth is only defined in terms of a set of self evident values.

Now, say we look at racism, in some societies racism might be thought of as a good thing as those people of other races are deemed inferior and it would only seem right that those who are intrinsically superior should make decisions and have privilege over those that are inferior. When one looks at the coherence of this belief with other facts about what potentially makes another race inferior however, one finds that the racist always resorts to special pleading. They therefore believe in an ethical system that has a low degree of coherence. An ethical system that does not regard race as a morally relevant characteristic is therefore more logically consistent and so has a higher objective truth value.