Can somebody give me a good argument in favor of objective morality?

[Shell B]

I never argued that there's no good or bad within morality. I argued that it's not objective.

Quick edit: I already explained why I think morals are definitively subjective. Even if they line up with that which is objectively good or bad, "morality" itself is still subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

The idea of subjectivism and objectivism being mutually exclusive and polar opposites is dead, no?  Isn't subjective moralism that collection of ideas which a few billion brains have ground through in their constant interaction with their environments, i.e. isn't it just a class of objective function over the population?

Khemikal, my answer is kind of what I'd expect from you: that one is really just a label for our experience of the other, but has no existential meaning at all.  Or is this what you're saying?

Sure, I think we could call the totality of moral ideas held by people, without any investigation of any of them, the collective subjective moral set.   The objective subset, if there were one, would be those opinions on some matter x that conforms or corresponds to a statement that met those earlier requirements in thread.

[Shell B]

Sure, if you way oversimplify it to be this

Objective morality is the idea that at least some moral judgments are not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true.

Then, certainly objective morality exists. However, there would be very few things that meet the criteria. They would have to be all good or all bad for everything/one affected.

[The Grand Nudger]

I never argued that there's no good or bad within morality. I argued that it's not objective.

Quick edit: I already explained why I think morals are definitively subjective. Even if they line up with that which is objectively good or bad, "morality" itself is still subjective.

If some moral opinion even -can- line up with that which is objectively good or bad that -is- objective morality.  


Can you understand my confusion?

@The above....I think we could come up with a long list of things that meet the criteria..but I think we could come up with an even longer list of things held to be true by people that don;t. The second set is a meaningfully subjective morality, the first a meaningfully objective morality.

Again, though, there's no requirement of absolutism in objectivity. Something that is objectively bad for me may not be for you, and vv. There may be divergent facts of the matter between us. It;s not objectively bad for me to pick my kids up at school. It would be..though..if you showed up and stole my spawn. Not that you'd want the little fuckers.

[Shell B]

Like I said, if we're going to define it that simply, then yes, there is objective morality, though I'd definitely argue you couldn't think of a long list of things that fit the bill.

Murder, nope. Rape, maybe, but even that's not all bad for everyone involved, as sick as that sounds. That makes it subjective. Hey, maybe tossing out radioactive waste with the bath water? That really can't help anyone or anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said, if we're going to define it that simply, then yes, there is objective morality, though I'd definitely argue you couldn't think of a long list of things that fit the bill.

Conveniently, it is defined that simply.  I think alot of people expect more?  Or expect things that aren't really a part of objective morality as those majority of academics sign off on it.  

Murder, nope.

Nope as in..nope murder wouldn't fit the criteria.....?

Rape, maybe, but even that's not all bad for everyone involved, as sick as that sounds.  That makes it subjective. 

That's not what would make something meaningfully subjective, and it only has to be "bad" for one of the people involved.  

Hey, maybe tossing out radioactive waste with the bath water? That really can't help anyone or anything.

Of the three...you think this one might fit...but not the other two....?

---

I ask, btw, because I'm going to focus on whichever one of the three you think the -strongest- objective case can be made for..and see whether or why whatever process you used to determine that fits the criteria but -can't- be applied to the other two.

[Shell B]

Nothing is that simple, Khem.

Nope. Murder wouldn't fit the criteria. It's not always bad or always good or always in the gray area. It's . . . subjective.

Actually, it has to be good or bad for everyone for it to be completely objective. Think about the root of the word subjective. The rapist is someone involved, and he's morally okay with it. It's "good" for him. Take that even further and let's suppose someone got pregnant from a rape and grew to love the ever-living shit out of that baby. She wouldn't change what happened for anything. Then, is it objectively bad or only subjectively bad?

Yes, atomic waste would be the thing I would find actually fit the objective morality thing, and that's only if it was to affect living organisms in any way. Say you tossed nuclear waste onto a dead planet, it would no longer be a bad or good thing. It'd be neutral. It's not necessarily "good" for the nuclear waster, as there are safer ways they can get rid of the waste. We could get really nitpicky and talk about the costs of it and the effect it would have on employees, but then I'd just wind up concluding that I can't think of a damn thing that is objectively immoral. I should add that I've said in the past that I think some thing are just fucking bad, but if I really want to get to the bones of it, I'm wrong.

Anyhoo, I said I wasn't going to get into this same debate on this forum again because it comes up every week, so I'm off. Think what you think, man. I don't even really think it matters if there are objective morals.

[bennyboy]

Like I said, if we're going to define it that simply, then yes, there is objective morality, though I'd definitely argue you couldn't think of a long list of things that fit the bill.

Murder, nope. Rape, maybe, but even that's not all bad for everyone involved, as sick as that sounds. That makes it subjective. Hey, maybe tossing out radioactive waste with the bath water? That really can't help anyone or anything.

Are we to confine morality specifically to effect of behaviors on humans?  What about mosquito rights?  Cuz I been slappin' them big time.

[Shell B]

Like I said, if we're going to define it that simply, then yes, there is objective morality, though I'd definitely argue you couldn't think of a long list of things that fit the bill.

Murder, nope. Rape, maybe, but even that's not all bad for everyone involved, as sick as that sounds. That makes it subjective. Hey, maybe tossing out radioactive waste with the bath water? That really can't help anyone or anything.

Are we to confine morality specifically to effect of behaviors on humans?  What about mosquito rights?  Cuz I been slappin' them big time.

That's subjective.

Fuck, I said I was leaving. I swear. I'm leaving.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing is that simple, Khem.

Things don't have to be simple to be objective.  They can be damned complicated. If you think about it, the more needlingly accurate you want your objective statement to be the more complicated it becomes. Try explaining a ball from the general down to the molecular.

The definition of an objective morality, however..is simple..and intentionally so, like the base foundation of any other position.

Nope. Murder wouldn't fit the criteria. It's not always bad or always good or always in the gray area. It's . . . subjective.

I think that a moral realist would suggest that you're discussing -killing- being "grey", somehow.  Murder is pretty much exclusively conceptualized as "the bad killing".  

Actually, it has to be good or bad for everyone for it to be completely objective.

That's absolutism, not objectivity.  They are completely different positions.  

Think about the root of the word subjective. The rapist is someone involved, and he's morally okay with it. It's "good" for him. Take that even further and let's suppose someone got pregnant from a rape and grew to love the ever-living shit out of that baby. She wouldn't change what happened for anything. Then, is it objectively bad or only subjectively bad?

The statement that rape is objectively bad is not a comment on the rapists pleasure or the victims motherly disposition.   It's a comment on the rape.  

Yes, atomic waste would be the thing I would find actually fit the objective morality thing, and that's only if it was to affect living organisms in any way.

If it would be objectively bad because it hurt living organisms in some way..wouldn't murder or rape be objectively bad because they hurt living organisms in some way?  

Anyhoo, I said I wasn't going to get into this same debate on this forum again because it comes up every week, so I'm off. Think what you think, man. I don't even really think it matters if there are objective morals.

It may not.  The practical difference between a person accepting a subjective rather than objective moral normative is likely to be nil.  Regardless of whether I think that rape is wrong because it hurts people or I think that rape is wrong because bob said so..I think it's wrong.

---

Are we to confine morality specifically to effect of behaviors on humans?  What about mosquito rights?  Cuz I been slappin' them big time.

There's no reason to, and we don't.  We already posit that our interactions with other species have a moral component as well. That's behind every declaration of the validity of the subject of animal welfare and cruelty.