Objective Moral Values

[ShoutGrace]

Objective Moral Values



Do objective moral values exist?

- - - - - If you believe so, what reasons do you have for believing in the existence of objective moral values?

- - - - - If you believe that objective moral values do not exist, what is your reasoning for that belief?

If objective moral values do exist, what are the necessary implications of that fact, if any?

If objective moral values do not exist, what are the necessary implications of that fact, if any?

[subterranean]

This is a little bit tough since what makes something morally right/wrong is based on the person's/individual belief whether something is morally right/wrong. But there are those situations where two, three, or more, hold the same belief, and agreed that something is morally right/wrong. This would result in somekind of social agreement, that there's indeed something called objective moral values. The word "objective" may only refers to those two or three people (not the entire world), and hence the implication would only effect those who hold the agreement. This is also, I think, one of the main reasons why conflicts in society occured. And personally, I'm not sure whether there's objective moral values that apply for everyone throughout the world.

I'm babbling.., I should get lunch soon

[Themis]

I'll just hope this is the topic you were talking about ...

Generally, about the "objective moral values", I'll fetch my natural law again. It's definition is a "set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings".
I do not think something can be built into the "structure of the universe" but I do believe that some objective moral values exist.
In the 19th century a certain branch of study ("historische Rechtsschule") was created by Friedrich C. von Savigny that thought that law was not merely created by the legislator but was allpresent in the minds of the people.
I think that's true. Something that the majority of people can agree on can be such a fundamental rule. It's not without fault but it seems to be that it's the only way to gather what an 'objective moral value' is. For example, killing an other person was prohibited throughout the world, not by every single nation but by a majority of them, I believe.
Reasons for believing this, I cannot give. It seems logical to me.

[apple jiang]

maybe I agree with subterranean,human beings are so subjective,the moral value of something depends on the different situation of every individual,maybe there are many single persons have the same experances or similar opinions and there minds will be together,when they encounter the same problem ,their answer is accordant,and then they think it is objective.all the criterions are just the things most of the people agree,if all the people think someting is right then it can be authority.in reverse,if just few people are fond of something,they will be considered as odds.homosexuality for example(at least in the past).

[mono]

I must agree with subterranean (nice to see you around the forum more ), themis, and apple jiang.
Perhaps objective morals exist, though not in my opinion. Humans, by nature, cannot avoid the inevitable subjectivity, as everything depends far too much on perception of the objective, if it indeed exists, itself. The formation of morals, as I have seen, depends vastly more on an individual's childhood; many behaviors and decision-making practices, for a great part, appear reliant on modeling from people in childhood (such as parents). From what I see, an individual's morals and values may take shape from an individual's culture, as well; a person from less industrialized parts of the world, for example, may place a different value on automobiles than citizens of more industrialized regions.
Very interesting question, nonetheless - worth pondering.

[ShoutGrace]

This is a little bit tough since what makes something morally right/wrong is based on the person's/individual belief whether something is morally right/wrong.

This is precisely the question, subterranean, and I suppose you may have answered it here. I am asking if there are things that are morally wrong or right regardless of whether anyone considers them as such or not. Is there such a thing as objective morality?

And personally, I'm not sure whether there's objective moral values that apply for everyone throughout the world.

Well, I suppose that uncertainty is an option as well.

It's definition is a "set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings".

That may indeed provide a suitable definition for one aspect of the theoretical moral values that I am talking about.

I do not think something can be built into the "structure of the universe"

I agree that the wording there is awfully delicate. It seems to purposefully take no cognizance of any kind of supernatural entities.

Something that the majority of people can agree on can be such a fundamental rule. It's not without fault but it seems to be that it's the only way to gather what an 'objective moral value' is.

That depends on certain things, doesn’t it?

For example, killing an other person was prohibited throughout the world, not by every single nation but by a majority of them, I believe.

Would it be morally acceptable for a country to decide on the whole that murder was fine and that no laws were to acknowledge it?

Reasons for believing this, I cannot give. It seems logical to me.

It seems logical to me, as well. But I believe that objective moral values exist and that they can be ascertained. Barring the existence of objective moral values, I still find the need to regulate society and keep people from harm logical, in the old ‘propagate the species’ vein. But I do not find it ultimately binding on any deeper or truer scale.

maybe I agree with subterranean,human beings are so subjective,the moral value of something depends on the different situation of every individual,

Are there no moral values that are constant regardless of temporal, spacial, or individual concerns? Is murder (killing a person with premeditated malice) consistently wrong?

all the criterions are just the things most of the people agree,

I think that you may be hitting on something key here, apple jiang. I wouldn’t want to misappropriate your idea, though. Can you explain this a little bit more?

if all the people think someting is right then it can be authority.

That is most certainly true, I think. Is this how the Law started, Themis? I am talking about way back when.

I must agree with subterranean (nice to see you around the forum more ),

Isn’t it wonderful to have her back?

Naturally, mono, you present difficult points. Due to my own deficiencies, your posts are always the hardest ones for me to grasp and understand. Next time could you try to dumb it down a little bit?

The formation of morals, as I have seen, depends vastly more on an individual's childhood; many behaviors and decision-making practices, for a great part, appear reliant on modeling from people in childhood (such as parents). From what I see, an individual's morals and values may take shape from an individual's culture, as well;

mono, I think that you are here describing the apprehension of morals and values. I agree with you, the ‘formation of morals’ is often done gradually, over time, and is somewhat dependent on external social conditions.

I don’t think that this phenomena speaks to the objectivity of those moral values, however.

[Themis]

That depends on certain things, doesn’t it?

Everything depends on 'certain things' which is why I wrote that"it can be such a fundamental rule". Meaning it could be, but it could very well be the wrong approach too. I obviously haven't made myself clear, I apologize for that. I meant to be vague since I have no other way to suggest right now but not that vague.

Would it be morally acceptable for a country to decide on the whole that murder was fine and that no laws were to acknowledge it?

That is one of the problems with this theory. I have no real answer for that. Within said country it would be morally acceptable. For outsiders it would not because in general people have agreed not to kill each other. I would say that it is most unacceptable 'morally' but would have to be accepted otherwise.

That is most certainly true, I think. Is this how the Law started, Themis? I am talking about way back when.

It would be nice to think it was that way. I've learned how written law "started" but material has been surprisingly non-existent regarding the origins of law. Personally, I think it was more a "This is the law because I say so!" kind of way.

[apple jiang]

Are there no moral values that are constant regardless of temporal, spacial, or individual concerns?

well,it's a little hard for me for my 理智tells me I can't be 极端的，yet I'm always thinking about the origin of human beings' civilization,for I think moral value is part of it.

Is murder (killing a person with premeditated malice) consistently wrong?

under the effect of Chinese traditional spirit of knight-errant ，this is not consistently wrong(maybe the person who is murdered is badly evil),but,is Chinese traditional spirit of knight-errant one aspact of the rules of moral values?is it objective?I'm wondering...

I think that you may be hitting on something key here, apple jiang. I wouldn’t want to misappropriate your idea, though. Can you explain this a little bit more?

as a matter of fact, I was thinking of how it could be formed,did it exist at the beginning of the world?what can be the definition of truth? authority doesn't exist ,it is just the product of people's feeling of adscription and fear.

That is most certainly true, I think.

thank you ,ShoutGrace.

[bhekti]

I think moral value has an objectivity. That's why we can talk about it now. Now since it is something we can talk about, it is subject to subjectivity, to a relativity.

[bhekti]

... I'm always thinking about the origin of human beings' civilization,for I think moral value is part of it.

as a matter of fact, I was thinking of how it could be formed,did it exist at the beginning of the world?what can be the definition of truth? authority doesn't exist ,it is just the product of people's feeling of adscription and fear.

I think i agree with apple jiang here. Morality is a part of civilization. Here's my idea:

In the beginning is a knowledge. (actually the story doesn't begin here). The knowledge makes Man self-conscious. The consciousness tells Man that they are in the condition of not knowing. This is a surprise because at the same time they have the knowledge that they are in the position of not knowing. From this Man realizes a binary reality (knowing - not knowing, conscious - not conscious, true - false, good - evil, real - unreal, positive - negative....etc). The Man, knowing that they are not knowing while they have the capability of knowing, feels terribly annoyed and wants to change the situation. They do not want the "not-". The Man wants to master only one out of the binary, that is, the positive one. Feeling terribly annoyed, Man begin to fix situation. So begin the civilization. One of the fruits of civilization is the concept of value, differentiating the valuable and the not-valuable. The differentiation is based on Man's basic need, that is, to appease the terribly annoying feeling. What strengthens the terrible feeling is not supposed to exist in their minds. So they begin to control knowledge by constructing language. For example, the scientific method, which produced the binary scientific - unscientific and morality, which produced the binary moral - immoral.

[Themis]

I think moral value has an objectivity. That's why we can talk about it now. Now since it is something we can talk about, it is subject to subjectivity, to a relativity.

Err ... I need to say something highly unprofessional now and probably disqualify myself from further discussions: Huh? Sorry but could you rephrase that?

[mono]

Naturally, mono, you present difficult points. Due to my own deficiencies, your posts are always the hardest ones for me to grasp and understand. Next time could you try to dumb it down a little bit?

O, contraire! Often times, I have difficulty keeping up with you, too.

The formation of morals, as I have seen, depends vastly more on an individual's childhood; many behaviors and decision-making practices, for a great part, appear reliant on modeling from people in childhood (such as parents). From what I see, an individual's morals and values may take shape from an individual's culture, as well;

mono, I think that you are here describing the apprehension of morals and values. I agree with you, the ‘formation of morals’ is often done gradually, over time, and is somewhat dependent on external social conditions.

I don’t think that this phenomena speaks to the objectivity of those moral values, however.

Indeed, I would like to think that most morals develop throughout one's life, depending on his/her childhood, culture, religion, spirituality, etc. Of course, if you want to consider the possibly-existing objectivity of morals, the objectivity, as odd as it sounds, seems subjective in itself. Just as an individual may feel that his/her actions seem most just and correct believes that entirely and 'objectively' to himself/herself; others always may disagree, depending on their 'objectivity' of morals.
The difference between even two people's morals does not even have to rely on up-bringing, culture, and the like; to me, there even seems a 'nature' side of morality's formation (not only 'nurture'). My two brothers and I, for example, though we experienced nearly the same up-bringing, very often disagree on moral and ethical issues.

In the beginning is a knowledge. (actually the story doesn't begin here). The knowledge makes Man self-conscious. The consciousness tells Man that they are in the condition of not knowing. This is a surprise because at the same time they have the knowledge that they are in the position of not knowing. From this Man realizes a binary reality (knowing - not knowing, conscious - not conscious, true - false, good - evil, real - unreal, positive - negative....etc). The Man, knowing that they are not knowing while they have the capability of knowing, feels terribly annoyed and wants to change the situation. They do not want the "not-". The Man wants to master only one out of the binary, that is, the positive one. Feeling terribly annoyed, Man begin to fix situation. So begin the civilization. One of the fruits of civilization is the concept of value, differentiating the valuable and the not-valuable. The differentiation is based on Man's basic need, that is, to appease the terribly annoying feeling. What strengthens the terrible feeling is not supposed to exist in their minds. So they begin to control knowledge by constructing language. For example, the scientific method, which produced the binary scientific - unscientific and morality, which produced the binary moral - immoral.

This seems very interesting, bhekti, and I fully agree with you, after considering the argument offered.
When I think of the fact, many morals begin with 'yes - no,' 'good - bad,' and 'true - false' teachings and guides, sometimes taught, others learned through individual behavior. Do you think it seems correct to say that all formation of morals begin with such dichotomies, especially before the concepts of 'maybe,' 'neither bad nor good,' and 'perhaps' take form?

[holograph]

I like bhekti's post. very interesting ideas. I am not sure on this topic, but what I believe to be true (ah, the subjective), and I may repeat some things for which I must apologize, is that what is "moral" is fully dependant on the individual, hence it is subjective. Morality is an individual experience, one that the individual ascertains and changes throughout one's life. A sense of morality en masse can become an objective reality, and has become to a degree, but it is fully based on perception. This perception is molded by DNA, upbringing, life experience etc. and may change many times. When I was younger I believed that it was perfectly moral to uphold the death sentence for prisoners. Now I disagree. My perception changed. And hence, my morals changed.

[bhekti]

Err ... I need to say something highly unprofessional now and probably disqualify myself from further discussions: Huh? Sorry but could you rephrase that?

... yes I have made myself unclear. And that's a professional act from you Themis to ask for clarification

What I mean to say is, moral value exists objectively as well as subjectively. It exists objectively because it can be detected (is it the right word?) or explained or communicated. So there is such a thing called moral value. And, it exists subjectively because it is subject to human minds that can furnish different opinion about it.

[bhekti]

.... Do you think it seems correct to say that all formation of morals begin with such dichotomies, especially before the concepts of 'maybe,' 'neither bad nor good,' and 'perhaps' take form?

Actually that is one of the questions I ask myself, mono. And, I still feel.... well, I dunno. I don't like dichotomies. I like to embrace and be embraced. Hmm...

However, there is something drifting in my mind. It whispers that perhaps all formations of morals begin with a "yes". Even to the concepts of "maybe" or "neither good nor bad" or "perhaps" begin with a "yes", an approvement.