Objective Moral Values

[ShoutGrace]

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

I’m not saying that the people are being convinced that it is “moral,” I’m saying that they are being convinced that it is advantageous for society, which it clearly is.

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."

That is true. But why does the government have to say that children don’t feel pain? Their decision to use children as natural fuel doesn’t depend on the fact that children can’t feel pain.



An adult says, “Hey, this is wrong, children can feel pain.” The government (and the person’s peers) can just say, “Sure they can. What’s your point? Why should that necessarily direct the course of our thinking, or our consideration in this matter?”


The “harm principle” has no more validity here than any other idea. It's the majority who decides, just as AllisonForbes said above.

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.

Why? Because they have sentimental value for you? You have a biased opinion that you would rather they live. Why is your personal preference binding as it concerns the philosophical aspect of the analogy?


My analogy isn’t about physical concerns, but rather philosophical ones. Sure, there would be an overwhelming portion of any society which would oppose having 1/3 of the children killed and used as fuel. Logistically, it wouldn’t happen (though there are many different reasons for that).



But philosophically, given the lack of objective moral values, why is it invalid? Why is it immoral? It clearly is not.

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 law (as an aspect of regulated human society) clearly changes according to public taste. But on a philosophical level, I disagree. Though if there is no god, then this is certainly true.

Which is why you can oppose the slaughter of children, based on “taste” and “subjective” preference, but you cannot say that it is objectively wrong.

[cuppajoe_9]

That is true. But why does the government have to say that children don’t feel pain? Their decision to use children as natural fuel doesn’t depend on the fact that children can’t feel pain.

I was assuming it does to prove my point about factual validity of moral claims. In practice, whenever governments do attempt something of this kind (Nazi Germany springs to mind) they substantiate it with similar nonsense.

But philosophically, given the lack of objective moral values, why is it invalid? Why is it immoral? It clearly is not.

Nope, 'tisn't. Not based on anything empirical anyway.

There are certainly pragmatic arguments for objective moral values, such as the fact that there are certain moral values that are close enough to being universal that they can be treated as such, and can therefore be treated as objective even if they are clearly not. Society tends to work on this basis. Ultimately, though, these beliefs rest on nothing (unless they rest on God, and even then he's being less than clear about it). I am not, however, in favor of complete ethical free-for-all, again for pragmatic reasons. It's best if we act as though there are objective moral values even if there aren't.

[bhekti]

I am not, however, in favor of complete ethical free-for-all, again for pragmatic reasons.

What are these pragmatic reasons? Why should they be reasons? I assume they possess a certain definite value.

It's best if we act as though there are objective moral values even if there aren't.

I remember you have said it before and I also remember that there was a british sociologist (Sir Julian Huxley, if I'm not mistaken) who said more or less the same thing about God (it's best if society act as though God exists). The key word is in "as though".

my question: on what basis should we assume the objectivity of moral values when we ourselves always think that moral values can't be objective?

[cuppajoe_9]

my question: on what basis should we assume the objectivity of moral values when we ourselves always think that moral values can't be objective?

Well, let's start with the murder taboo. Would you like to be killed? Me neither. How about if we then enter in to an agreement which stipulates that we will not kill each other and, while we're at it, include every other member of society along with us, because it is, in the long run, better for every single member of society if nobody kills anybody, assuming of course that all members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered. I don't see why we should need a large invisible man with a beard to arbitrate this.

[bhekti]

...How about if we then enter in to an agreement which stipulates that we will not kill each other and, while we're at it, include every other member of society along with us, because it is, in the long run, better for every single member of society if nobody kills anybody, assuming of course that all members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered....

I see that your pragmatic reason includes, if i may say, an assumed generalization. What drives you to such generalization? Or, what makes you so ready to assume that "all members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered"? If everything is subjective, we couldn't have made such an assumption, right? So, despite your self-consciousness, it seems to me that you recognize an objective value in society's being, thus in morality.

(I'm sorry if I sound like judging you)

[cuppajoe_9]

I see that your pragmatic reason includes, if i may say, an assumed generalization. What drives you to such generalization? Or, what makes you so ready to assume that "all members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered"?

Observation. I don't want to be killed, you don't want to be killed, none of our friends or family want to be killed. There are always deviations from such rules, but there always will be, objective moral values or no.

If everything is subjective, we couldn't have made such an assumption, right? So, despite your self-consciousness, it seems to me that you recognize an objective value in society's being, thus in morality.

Didn't you just criticize me for failing to recognise that this is not an objective value? And I completely agree, it's completely subjective, but most people subscribe to it, so it's as good a starting point as any.

I'm not proposing that we remove objective moral values, I'm stating the fact that there are not now, nor were there ever such things. There's no reason to rework our legal system in light of this, as it's nothing new, as our legal system (or at least mine) has never worked on the assumption that there are anyway.

[dramasnot6]

I see that your pragmatic reason includes, if i may say, an assumed generalization. What drives you to such generalization? Or, what makes you so ready to assume that "all members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered"?

Observation. I don't want to be killed, you don't want to be killed, none of our friends or family want to be killed. There are always deviations from such rules, but there always will be, objective moral values or no.

.

i agree with cuppa, how could fear of death be an assumed generalization? I refer to Maslows Hierarchy of needs, the fear of death and need for protection is simply a physiological instinct embedded into all humans, and most living things subconscience. You could observe in any society masses of literature, art, mythology, etc. that supports a negative response to death. Sure, nowadays we are bombarded with the "emo" phase. Suicide is portrayed as appealing, satanism promoted. But because death is universely regarded as such an extreme, if not the most extreme, source of fear, it is contrasted with positive emotions by attention seeking teenagers to appear cool even thoguh they have no idea what they are talking about. Thats the only example I can think of in terms of people not seeing death as something not to be desired. What is more fundamental to survival then avoiding the end of it?

[Charles Wong]

Depends on what "way of knowing" one chooses to use. I rely on the scientific method. science can "prove" that certain things happen and why. But science cannot "prove" that, for example, abortion or porn is "moral" or immoral." it is purely a subjective/emotional feeling of "right" and "wrong." Each generation varies in their moral values, yet each generation claims that their moral values are absolute truth. If you are of European descent, than your great grandparents believed that is was absolute moral truth to be anti-Semitic and consider Africans as biologically inferior. Today though, European people believe the opposite: that all races are equal, and that this is the only moral thinking view.

[kilted exile]

If you are of European descent, than your great grandparents believed that is was absolute moral truth to be anti-Semitic and consider Africans as biologically inferior.

Wow, and I thought I was prone to making sweeping generalisations.....

[Charles Wong]

Wow, and I thought I was prone to making sweeping generalisations.....

Actually, it's quite historically accurate that only in the last 100 years did European people become racially egalitarian: for most of the recorded 5,000 years of European history, equality did not exist. But I only use Europeans as an example because they are the majority population where I live. But same thinking existed for other races as well. In fact, currently in my country of China, racism the norm: our people hold the same racial views that Whites did 100 years ago. So, I was not just picking on Euro people.

[bhekti]

i agree with cuppa, how could fear of death be an assumed generalization? I refer to Maslows Hierarchy of needs, the fear of death and need for protection is simply a physiological instinct embedded into all humans, and most living things subconscience....

And I agree with you. I was just using irony when I called it "an assumed generalization". As you and cuppajoe and I observe, fear of death has the characteristic of an objective thing.

Now, returning to the topic, isn't morality a by-product of this fear of death? Therefore, being originated from an objective thing (that is, fear of death), morality is consequently an objective thing too.

[cuppajoe_9]

Now, returning to the topic, isn't morality a by-product of this fear of death? Therefore, being originated from an objective thing (that is, fear of death), morality is consequently an objective thing too.

Fear of death is not an objective thing. It's a completely subjective and rather irrational thing. Fear and objectivity are two concepts that simply do not go together. Something cannnot be objectively said to be fearful any more than it can be objectively said to be plesant or (as I am trying to argue) objectively moral.

[Shadowsarin]

I'm gonna plunge right into the deep end here as I just don't have the willpower to read five pages of debate. If I say anything that has been said already, I'm sorry.

I am 100% Relativist, and consider the concept of objective moral truths daft. Humans are born as clean slates, and their enviroment as they are brought up is what molds them. Just look at Feral Children!

Morality is a concept I consider evil. Perhaps a necisery evil, but still evil. It is born of God, which is born of fear of death. Do this or some unseen unfelt being will cast you into a fire for eternity! There are so many ideals of right and wrong, some streaching back milleniums, so how are we meant to know which is the right one? If there is an Objective Moral Code, how are we meant to find it with so many other concepts of right and wrong?

(yeah, all of that will defo have been said pages ago, ah well)

[Eagleheart]

There are so many ideals of right and wrong, some streaching back milleniums, so how are we meant to know which is the right one?

Now, what is your reaction when for example someone is pointing a gun at you? Perhaps you are stoically accepting the freedom of values, or you are questioning the right of the disturber to deprive you of life...
I really risk being boring to myself if I am to repeat my position on relativism...I can only add that relativism has been and will be faint-heartedness in facing the human tasks and challenges and lack of responsibility for the world as we see it...

[Shadowsarin]

Now, what is your reaction when for example someone is pointing a gun at you? Perhaps you are stoically accepting the freedom of values, or you are questioning the right of the disturber to deprive you of life...
I really risk being boring to myself if I am to repeat my position on relativism...I can only add that relativism has been and will be faint-heartedness in facing the human tasks and challenges and lack of responsibility for the world as we see it...

Desire to live is a survival instinct in my eyes, no different than for example a need to feed. So, an equally extreme example for you. Is it wrong to kill and eat another human if not doing so will result in your death?