Objective Moral Values

[Regit]

Why? Because Greenpeace is concerned about this world, the one here and now that endures, the one we can measure and project into our children's children's future.

Yes, and that is the subjective moral value that you are arguing, I got it. Yet...

The moral motivation of any man, woman, or organization is as valuable in my eyes as that of any organized religion.

Thus, subjectively, I assume that you would put a group terrorists in the same list, since they also have intersubjective morality that is, subjectively, just as valuable in your eyes. I mean, they really believe that they are helping the world, don't they?

Do I owe a heightened care not to offend when I do not intend to offend?

Of course you do, it is a public place. The lack of intention alone is not enough but reasonable precaution must be taken, otherwise you will have to respond to people offended by your words. If, to you, a lack of intention to offend is enough to disregard any offence, then any ignorance would also be a good enough excuse to do wrong. The investigation of every offence starts with actus reus. The first question is: did you offend?

If a god-loving Christian told me that the project of Greenpeace was not as important as the Church, I would say "Phooey!" and that would be the end of it.

So much for a meaningful dialogue. I myself would ask 'why?' and listen to what they have to say.

You say "faith" but what does faith have to do with Objective moral values?
Please explain.

Very simple: If God made us, he also made our morality, hence, making it objective. Heard of the 10 Commandments? Good.

I am suggesting that at the end of the day we can only have a valuable dialogue IF god and doctrine is left out of it.

So this is a display of any kind of opinions, is it? I find it hard to work without doctrines I'm afraid. In conversations where people base their arguments on loose terms such as "pure wisdom", whose implication have not yet been seen or read by myself then, naturally, I have to ask many more questions before knowing how to respond. The lack of research or an academic foundation makes for a pointless and confusing conversation.

It is my (humble) opinion that much of the so-called 'dialogue' that goes on between sectarian leaders has more to do with the exultation of their ego than the actual desire to mend fences.

Yes, and it will remain your (humble) opinion.

You are searching desperately for a root cause and you're not going to get it here.

Believe me, I'm not searching for anything here but a civilised debate and an exchange of honest opinions. This may come as a surprise but I do read, and do value the works of renown scholars much more than just any opinions that I come by.

Some mentioned biological and social influences, but the idea of pinpointing what brings these forces together is speculative.

So we're both speculating you say. If the idea behind your argument is speculative, so must your argument be. In the same spirit, I can't prove God to you! So you will deem my argument speculative. Where are you going with this? Sometimes 'I don't know' just doesn't convince that well.

Only a person with a fourth dimension view would be able to answer it.

I'm not gonna pretend I know what that means. Are you talking about time travel?

We've had some very clever statements made by major leaders. The "Evil empire" and the "Axis of evil," but who wants to give supreme moral authority to those knuckle heads?

They are politicians and their statements have many aims and are not purely for theoretical purposes. It's silly to compare them to religious doctrines or philosophical doctrines, unless your purpose is to confuse or to take a cheap jab at the world leaders.

"I don't know what's going to happen man, but I'm going to have my kicks before the whole s##thouse goes up in flames, alright!"

well, it does sum up your argument.
And I will leave you with something slightly different:

"So God created man
in his own image
in the image of God
created he him;
male and female
created he them."
-Genesis 1 27

Now please, speculate.

[Maerlook]

I am a little hesitant to enter into this debate; the topic has been well covered. There seems to be a duality to this debate. This duality I think is the product of a duality in the topic. I do not think that it is fair to force a theory of morality into one generic box and expect it to describe a plural universe.
In current moral theory, two categories exist: Negative moral law and positive moral law.
In the discussion, so far the focus seems to be on negative moral law, a restriction on action due to its perceived value. Positive moral law is the call to action based on its perceived value, and it does not seem to have played a significant part.
In dealing with negative moral law, I would have to say that it is a creation of society in order to maintain peace and prosperity. The reason for this judgment is that negative moral law is useless without society. If I am alone (without society) in the forest and I see food on the ground, I pick it up and eat it. Because society establishes the right to define and restrict ownership, society keeps me from taking ownership of the item. If I alone do not take ownership of the food, it is not a moral injunction that keeps me from it but a personal preference even if I know that another gathered the food he would have to have some kind on agreement with me for me to steal from him. In the case of murder, a little clarity is required. Murder implies wrongful killing of another person (otherwise, it is just killing). Killing in most societies is subject to moral scrutiny but not moral prohibition. In other words, a society reserves the right to determine whether a killing is moral. Without such a judge or examination how is it possible to know that, you had actually murdered a person. With out some sort of social contract or understanding there is no way to know what constitutes a just killing. The only way a negative moral law can be universal is if you presuppose a deity or something of the like, who has already created not only the universe but society (the relationship to it/him/her constitutes that society).
Positive moral law on the other hand does not seem to require a society. If I were to believe that I should treat others, as I would like to be treated, it does not require that I have an understanding with the person I come across. I simply act accordingly and am on my way. Even if the behavior I would like is a little odd to the customs of the other, I would be considered odd not immoral. If I determine that it is moral to save life whenever possible it does not require a deity exist for it to be moral. What if anything is a positive moral law contingent on? A positive moral law would have to be contingent on the existence of a single moral actor and that is all.

Does this mean that positive moral laws are objective? I don't think there is any way to prove that they are, however I can not find any reason why they would not be. If positive moral laws are objective, which ones are true becomes the next question.

I am loosing out to sleep, so if any of this does not make sense let me know and I will clarify at a later time.

[Regit]

In current moral theory, two categories exist: Negative moral law and positive moral law.

What "current moral theory" is that? May I please have a source? I'd love to read up on it myself.

In the discussion, so far the focus seems to be on negative moral law, a restriction on action due to its perceived value.

How so? Please explain. Which arguments have so far focused only on this "negative moral law"? Please specify.

Murder implies wrongful killing of another person (otherwise, it is just killing). Killing in most societies is subject to moral scrutiny but not moral prohibition.

Murder, in "most societies", is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature under peace, with intention to kill or create grevious bodily harm. Your term "wrongful", if looked at with leniency, might cover the "under peace" and even the "reasonable creature" part; it does NOT, however, cover "unlawful killing" or "intention to kill or create grevious bodily harm." In most legal systems, especially those of the Common Wealth countries, a defence for murder can include 'volutary manslaughter' and 'involuntary manslaughter', both areas covering many offences each of which involves "killing". Thus, under the laws of society, which you have paid special attention to here, killing IS prohibited. And the legislative brach of government reflects moral values of society, making "killing" morally prohibited. If you speak of moral only in general terms, please leave "law" out of it.

Does this mean that positive moral laws are objective? I don't think there is any way to prove that they are, however I can not find any reason why they would not be.

So what's your answer? Remember the main question: "Do objective moral values exist?"? You say you can't prove 'it does', nor can you prove 'it does not'; so is this another 'I don't know'?

[Maerlook]

What "current moral theory" is that? May I please have a source? I'd love to read up on it myself.

I know this is a little out of sequence, but when I speak of moral law, I am not speaking of legislation. I mean a body of moral assessments made in a particular theory or society. Kantian moral law is not that body of legislation which is influenced by Kant but the structure or moral thought presented by Kant. I apologize for the ambiguity.

Regarding the positive and negative moral law and current moral theory I did not mean a particular moral theory but the standards by which a particular moral theory is evaluated. These are not theories in and of themselves; they are two in a set of tools to help axiological philosophers. Again, I seem to have fallen into excessive ambiguity.

Here is your reference.
Hallie, Phillip “From Cruelty to Goodness” Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life. 6th ed.

Belmont: Wadsworth/ Thomson, 2004.

Hallie has written a few other pieces and this is only a selection but it is the only one I had on hand.

How so? Please explain. Which arguments have so far focused only on this "negative moral law"? Please specify.

I made this statement because I did not see that anyone had addressed the implications of Positive moral law or that which establishes value on prescribed action. It seemed that most of the comments where referring to the prohibition of action which is only half of the game.

Murder, in "most societies", is the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature under peace, with intention to kill or create grevious bodily harm.

I assumed that we were only dealing with those actions that were intentional. I am not sure that there can be moral blame ascribed to unintentional actions as long as an reasonable effort is made to understand the consequeces of the action.
I am also not so sure that laws actually reflect any moral tendency while I know they reflect social expediency.

So what's your answer? Remember the main question: "Do objective moral values exist?"? You say you can't prove 'it does', nor can you prove 'it does not'; so is this another 'I don't know'?

My answer is that any negative moral law (value set on a prohibition of action) can not be objective because it requires a subject (the other that you are not allowed to infringe upon), unless there is the presupposition of a deity. The deity then becomes the other and is what is infringed upon. When it comes to the Positive moral structures, I do not know, because it may be possible to have a positive moral proscription which does not require the other.

Much of philosophy has been eloquently saying, “I don’t know.”

[Regit]

Again, I seem to have fallen into excessive ambiguity.

And this was caused only by the lack of reference. You were not misunderstood, you were simply not understood.

Here is your reference.
Hallie, Phillip “From Cruelty to Goodness” Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life. 6th ed.

Belmont: Wadsworth/ Thomson, 2004.

Hallie has written a few other pieces and this is only a selection but it is the only one I had on hand.

Thanks; I will read it after I find it. I have a feeling that I will have much difficulty with the latter task.

Regarding the positive and negative moral law and current moral theory I did not mean a particular moral theory but the standards by which a particular moral theory is evaluated. These are not theories in and of themselves; they are two in a set of tools to help axiological philosophers.

Yes, that was the first possibility that I considered. But tools still involve theories; and unless it's your own theory, you understand if I find difficulty in being convinced when you gave no source of reference whatsoever. And when you use the word "standard", you have to expect people to think of it as a dominant and influencial work.

I assumed that we were only dealing with those actions that were intentional.

A careless assumption may I say. And regardless of whether you did include the lack of "intention" in "wrongful", my point stands corrected (being unchallenged) that most unintentional "killings" are also prohibited (murder is not the only killing against the law), which makes your statement wrong. This is the point that you should be challenging, using that source you gave. I understand if you have a hard time finding supporting material from it. And anyway, whether the article does in fact support the view you put forth, it will take me a while to verify, due to the scarce and diminutive nature of your source.

I am also not so sure that laws actually reflect any moral tendency.

Yes they do, at least in theory. In modern democracies, the legislative brach of government must be the most representative of the people (search 'separation of power'). Thus, its produce is that of the people to the nearest proximity currently available. In other words, legislations reflect the morality of citizens. And it is its proximity that you can challenge, not its nature or purpose. And here's your reference: Rousseau's "social contract and discourse", and A V Dicey's "The Rule of Law", that should be enough info to find them. They are books, influencial ones in their fields.

Much of philosophy has been eloquently saying, “I don’t know.”

Yes, but most with a satisfying and well-supported explanation; and most were not participating in a discussion with a specific question which requires a specific answer.

[AllisonForbes]

I think morality is defined by that which benefits the greatest amount of people. Therefore, killing is morally wrong, because if it were allowed, it could lead to the extinction of the species.

Morality is then taught/coded to individuals who either embrace it or reject it. However, the consequences for rejecting it are censure/punishment to reinforce the greatest good for all.

Morality could be seen in a broader sense as a self-preservation mechanism. Laws governing behavior allow each of us to interact with some freedom and mobility. Were it not for morality and the enforcements of the law, societal behavior would disintegrate, and it would be each man for himself.

ShoutGrace you've asked:
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?

I would tend to believe as I've read through this thread and understand what you are asking that no, there are no moral values that are constant. Moral values are defined by groups of people, each particular group has their own moral code. Murder could quite conceivably be said to the closest to a constant, however there are many societies that do not hold murder in the same light as the majority of civilizations do now.

[jon1jt]

I think morality is defined by that which benefits the greatest amount of people. Therefore, killing is morally wrong, because if it were allowed, it could lead to the extinction of the species.

Morality is then taught/coded to individuals who either embrace it or reject it. However, the consequences for rejecting it are censure/punishment to reinforce the greatest good for all.

Morality could be seen in a broader sense as a self-preservation mechanism. Laws governing behavior allow each of us to interact with some freedom and mobility. Were it not for morality and the enforcements of the law, societal behavior would disintegrate, and it would be each man for himself.

ShoutGrace you've asked:
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?

I would tend to believe as I've read through this thread and understand what you are asking that no, there are no moral values that are constant. Moral values are defined by groups of people, each particular group has their own moral code. Murder could quite conceivably be said to the closest to a constant, however there are many societies that do not hold murder in the same light as the majority of civilizations do now.

I agree, well said.

[ShoutGrace]

I think morality is defined by that which benefits the greatest amount of people. Therefore, killing is morally wrong, because if it were allowed, it could lead to the extinction of the species.

Morality is then taught/coded to individuals who either embrace it or reject it. However, the consequences for rejecting it are censure/punishment to reinforce the greatest good for all.

Morality could be seen in a broader sense as a self-preservation mechanism. Laws governing behavior allow each of us to interact with some freedom and mobility. Were it not for morality and the enforcements of the law, societal behavior would disintegrate, and it would be each man for himself.
Moral values are defined by groups of people, each particular group has their own moral code. Murder could quite conceivably be said to the closest to a constant, however there are many societies that do not hold murder in the same light as the majority of civilizations do now.

Precisely. If there is a society today which advocates removing half of all children from society at the age of 5, killing them, and using their bodies as natural fuel, they are not morally culpable in any ‘objective’ sense.

They would most obviously be in violation of some sort of international laws, I imagine. Their polices might seem ‘savage’ to us, or offend our sensibilities.

If they could convince their populace that this was a rational, advantageous way to run society, what right would anybody have to interfere (excluding legal)? If anybody had any right, where did it come from and why is it legitimate ‘morally’? Would there be no basis to decry their policy and move to stop its processes? Wouldn’t any such basis be entirely subjective and therefore not ultimately binding?

[AllisonForbes]

The majority decides. As is the case with most moral laws. Therefore, if the majority of Americans believed that the death penalty should be legalized, it would become law. Perhaps, the thing that stops humans from fully adapting this attitude completely is the self-preservation instinct.

[ShoutGrace]

I find that disturbing, AllisonForbes.

The reason that children should not be systematically executed is not because the majority decides not to. It isn't because it is detrimental to society or because it offends our sensibilities.

It is because objective moral values exist, and therefore human beings have intrinsic worth; unalienable rights endowed upon us.

Morality isn't evolved socio-biological preference.

[cuppajoe_9]

I think I've thought up a good analogy:

Morality is like quality of music. There are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, but nobody would think that this makes any collection of noises as good a piece of music as any.

[bhekti]

I think I've thought up a good analogy:

Morality is like quality of music. There are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, but nobody would think that this makes any collection of noises as good a piece of music as any.

[ShoutGrace]

I think I've thought up a good analogy:

Morality is like quality of music. There are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, but nobody would think that this makes any collection of noises as good a piece of music as any.

Music is personal preference. If there are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, than anything Mozart ever produced cannot be said to be "better" or "as good" as a collection of noises.

We may all like Mozart better, but there isn't any rational way of defending that.

Are you really willing to apply that to morality?

Is it rational to say that torturing another human being is morally wrong? I contend that if there are no objective moral values, than that statement isn't rational at all.

I'll reproduce the following (with changes, just to stay true to history) because it constitutes an extreme caricature which highlights the foolishness of moral relativism (which is given).

If there is a society today which advocates removing 1/3 of all children from society at the age of 5, killing them, and using their bodies as natural fuel, they are not morally culpable in any ‘objective’ sense.

They would most obviously be in violation of some sort of international laws, I imagine. Their polices might seem ‘savage’ to us, or offend our sensibilities.

If they could convince their populace that this was a rational, advantageous way to run society, what right would anybody have to interfere (excluding legal)? If anybody had any right, where did it come from and why is it legitimate ‘morally’? Would there be no basis to decry their policy and move to stop its processes? Wouldn’t any such basis be entirely subjective and therefore not ultimately binding?

[cuppajoe_9]

Music is personal preference. If there are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, than anything Mozart ever produced cannot be said to be "better" or "as good" as a collection of noises.

We may all like Mozart better, but there isn't any rational way of defending that.

Are you really willing to apply that to morality?

Is it rational to say that torturing another human being is morally wrong? I contend that if there are no objective moral values, than that statement isn't rational at all.

Oh, so just because I don't believe in god, I have to be rational about everything?*

I'll reproduce the following (with changes, just to stay true to history) because it constitutes an extreme caricature which highlights the foolishness of moral relativism (which is given).

If there is a society today which advocates removing 1/3 of all children from society at the age of 5, killing them, and using their bodies as natural fuel, they are not morally culpable in any ‘objective’ sense.

They would most obviously be in violation of some sort of international laws, I imagine. Their polices might seem ‘savage’ to us, or offend our sensibilities.

If they could convince their populace that this was a rational, advantageous way to run society, what right would anybody have to interfere (excluding legal)? If anybody had any right, where did it come from and why is it legitimate ‘morally’? Would there be no basis to decry their policy and move to stop its processes? Wouldn’t any such basis be entirely subjective and therefore not ultimately binding?

That's a pretty big 'if', but yes, if you can get everybody to pretend something is moral, than there's no way to say that it isn't (similar to the way that if you get everybody to pretend that Beyonce is brilliant, there's no rational way to attack them). Somebody, however, does have the right to interefrere: the children who are to be slaughtered and their parents. If the children would like to be saved, then save them.

There is one way way moral claims can be validated that does not fit in with my analogy, however: the claim can be based on a statement that can be factually false. If, for example, the government of this country justified their actions by saying "It's alright, because children cannot feel pain", one could say, "I can demonstrate the children do feel pain, and therefore your claim is invalid."

The best protection against this, however, is a population which is not completely stupid and not completely cowed. If you try to kill my children I will oppose you, not because of any objective moral code that's floating somewhere in the universe that you are in violation of, but because I don't want my children to be killed.

Because we are all terribly afraid that we will wake up one day and be extremely suceptible to suggestion, we write down all the things that we (subjectively) consider immoral and call it a 'code of law'. We then all agree to pretend that this constitutes an objective moral code but, of course, it doesn't because it was written by subjective human beings, because people generally only follow those laws which suit them personally, and because the law changes with public taste.

The same problem arises with scripture. Ignoring the origins of texts such as the Bible (no good can come of that argument, and it doesn't matter for my purposes), interpretation changes over time. The actual text, unlike legal codes, changes very little, but different groups in different time periods read different morals into different bits of it. Every single sect of Christians, Jews and Muslims are reading from the same book (give or take), but there is a very wide range of moral codes between them. Rastafarians read the story of Sampson and come to the conclusion that it is an affront to God to cut their hair. Catholics read the same passage and come to the conclusion that Rastafarians are out of their heads. Meanwhile, Rastafarians are reading the bit about the last supper, and think that the Catholics are absolutely barking mad about the whole transubstantiation issue. The point of all this (admittedly quite silly) illustration is that scriptures cannot be considered objective moral codes because everybody interprets them according to their own biases. (Let me point out that I think this is a good thing. If all believers took Leviticus litteraly, they would have to do some pretty unpleasant things to pretty much everybody I know.

Enough rambling for you?


*Joke. That was a joke.

[Orionsbelt]

When it comes to the Positive moral structures, I do not know, because it may be possible to have a positive moral proscription which does not require the other.

Much of philosophy has been eloquently saying, “I don’t know.”

The reference in this case is "the self" as the other. So I'm not sure that this is just not a special case of the negative moral structure.

I am inclined to say that there is no objective moral law. I would venture to say it would have to include all things animal, vegetable, mineral.... up to and including God himself ... so claim the souls of Sodom and Gomorrah.