My views on objective morality

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Are you being serious? There's a huge difference between sleeping in a bed and genocide. You cannot equate the two. Also, you can set a rule for a dog but it it's not morally wrong for the dog to run away and say to hell with you and your rules.

I'm not going back to the drawing board to come up with an analogy more to your liking if this one is too hard for you because I didn't try to find something morally equivalent to genocide to make a fairly simple point. If you don't have the imagination to do so yourself, feel free to continue to not get the point.

I had resolved to walk away from this site for at least a month to take care of my sanity, but when I opened my phone browser it opened this page, this shit analogy caught my attention, and it made my blood boil. So I'm going to say just this, and then I'm done for awhile - how fucking dare you compare the protection of one's personal space and/or health to being an accessory to genocide, rape, murder, and other evils which cause horrible suffering to the victim! Your dog doesn't suffer if you don't allow him on the bed, and if you torture your dog, then you deserve to be treated the same. Just keep at it, and see how much more twisted your arguments become, the more that you attempt to dignify the idea of the trifecta awesome god who allws evil. It takes a particularly insensitive pig to present this dogshit as an excuse for a god to enjoy his snuff porn.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Anyone that calls some things right and others wrong or talks about justice tacitly accepts the existence of moral facts.

People can, and do, have opinions, which do not appeal to factuality for justification, all the time.

I agree and that is why I made the distinction between tacit and explicit.

[Ryantology]

Where I think we differ is on the critical question of whether there are moral facts about being human, facts that do not depend on the opinion of one individual; but rather, can be discerned independently in the same way other facts are known: reason applied to experience. The validity of moral reasoning depends on such moral facts to justify overruling instinct. The most basic notion of virtue is predicated on the idea that virtues are real attributes related to definable features of human nature. Otherwise value judgments are meaningless.

I suppose the question that follows is, does a moral statement have to possess objective value in order to have any value at all? Is it all or nothing? If this is true, why does this standard not apply to the evidence proffered by believers that is based upon subjective experiences?

Anyone that calls some things right and others wrong or talks about justice tacitly accepts the existence of moral facts. I object to those who knowingly deny the existence of moral facts but nevertheless treat human interactions in anything other than power dynamics. Interestingly, I do not recall you ever expressing a moral judgment although many others who deny moral facts do.

This might be true. To suggest that morals are a concept people agree upon because it appears to be in the best interests of the group can be reduced to power dynamics. But, then again, the concept that morals are an immutable concept governed by the creator of the universe is no less a power dynamic, because such morals are enforced by a being with infinite power (and often, a propensity to dole out punishment), and justified by that creator's superior wisdom.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hi, guys, sorry I've been MIA. Been super busy with the kittens, meal prepping for my surgery next week, and work. I just got home but need to leave again real soon to get more stuff I need at Walmart. Not sure if I'll be able to catch up on the thread at this point, and I still have 2 PM's in my inbox that I need to read and respond to lol.

I'll try to skim though some of what I've missed and see if I can give a quick reply to a few things before I leave.

[Catholic_Lady]

No. A subject can have valid reasons for disagreeing with your moral sensibilities. Both sensibilities might each pertain in different situations or with different actors. If you're looking for pat answers in such a complex subject, I'm afraid I can't help you much.

You and I agree that generally, bashing someone in the face is not very moral. However, the immorality of an act can be mitigated or even negated by the circumstances around the event. Am I bashing in self-defense? To save another from greater harm? Does that make my bashing "good", or simply "necessary"?

That is the essence of the claim that morality is both subjective and relative. Neither adjective means morality doesn't exist at all, they only mean that each act must be judged on its own qualities. Note that that judgement inherently introduces subjectivity into the matter as well.

I have to come to CL's defense here. Terms like "objective" and "subjective" are used in more than one sense, as you know, but the way she is (roughly) using them seems to be just about the most common one in popular discussions on this. And even if it weren't, so what? She's making a specific claim - that morality is objective, where by "objective" she means that is is factual - rather than subjective, by which she means that it is just a matter of how someone feels about it. And that's a question that can be addressed independently of what the terms themselves "really" mean.

Assuming you're not ignoring my posts: have I understood you correctly, CL?

Yes sir!

And no, you are not on my ignore list.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well bashing someone in the face is not a good example because it is not something that we claim is objectively immoral in the fist place. There can be fine reasons for bashing someone in the face... like in self defense. So you are right, the morality of bashing someone in the face depends on circumstances surrounding the event.  

So let's stick to rape, which is an act that we claim to be objectively immoral.

Sure. What if a rapist were convicted and as a punishment sentenced to be himself raped? Would that sentence be moral or immoral?

This means the act of rape is always immoral, regardless of circumstances.

That remains to be seen, depending on your answer to the above question. You don't get to simply claim that something is "objectively immoral" in arguing for objective morality. That is circular reasoning and unacceptable in this sort of argumentation.

The only thing that changes here is the culpability of the rapist. A rapist who is legitimately insane and was having a psychotic episode has less culpability than one who premeditated the rape and is perfectly mentally capable of controlling what he's doing. Does this mean one rape was moral and the other wasn't? No, they were both immoral. The culpability of the rapist is the only thing that changes.

That is a good example of moral relativity, actually. The insane rapist is held to a different standard precisely because of his diminished capacity to apprehend the moral dimension of his act.

As for the definition of subjective, I'm on my phone right now and so cannot link easily, but I'd think a definition from, say, the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy would be more apt. I'll look it up and link when I get home tonight. Using general definitions in philosophical discussions is a good way to run aground around philosophers.

To answer your question, I believe it would still be immoral. 

Reading the rest of this, I can see that perhaps our disagreement stems more from semantics than anything else.

[Catholic_Lady]

I can say "rape is evil"... that's objective because it is fact.

No.

It's.

Not.



It's a fact that most decent people don't like rape, and probably that you personally have a very strong personal reaction to it.  But if someone thinks rape is okay, either generally or in specific contexts, you don't get to say they are just wrong on their facts.

I know you don't think it is. I was presenting my beliefs on the matter.

[pocaracas]

meal prepping for my surgery next week,

Surgery?
Nothings, serious, I hope!
Best of luck!

[Catholic_Lady]

Notice you are no longer saying "rape is objectively evil according to my Catholic beliefs".  Now you seem to be saying that what you say is evil is evil because it is an objective fact.  That makes everyone of us moral subjectivists have to ask exactly how you in your subjectivity get hold of the alleged objective moral facts?  Does believing there is a God who decides what is moral objectively bestow the power to know the difference to those who believe in that God?  Is every Catholic a moral genius on this account?

It would seem that the most you are in a position to say is that "rape is objectively evil" in case my religious beliefs are true.. We all have to assume that your position for recognizing the truth is no better or worse than any of ours.  If indeed there are objective moral facts you must at least explain how you arrived at these from within your human subjectivity.

My bold. You are correct, I just figured it was already implied. But yes, I am speaking according to my beliefs which I feel confident are true, but of course, there is always the chance I could be wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sure. What if a rapist were convicted and as a punishment sentenced to be himself raped? Would that sentence be moral or immoral?




That remains to be seen, depending on your answer to the above question. You don't get to simply claim that something is "objectively immoral" in arguing for objective morality. That is circular reasoning and unacceptable in this sort of argumentation.


That is a good example of moral relativity, actually. The insane rapist is held to a different standard precisely because of his diminished capacity to apprehend the moral dimension of his act.

As for the definition of subjective, I'm on my phone right now and so cannot link easily, but I'd think a definition from, say, the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy would be more apt. I'll look it up and link when I get home tonight. Using general definitions in philosophical discussions is a good way to run aground around philosophers.

To answer your question, I believe it would still be immoral. 

Reading the rest of this, I can see that perhaps our disagreement stems more from semantics than anything else.

I don't think so. I think you're applying your subjective morals but insisting that they are objective without explaining why that is the case.