What is "objectively refuting"? The use of logic to justify moral action? But then that would just be logic wouldn't it? Why call it morality when you aren't appealing to some commonly believed-in principle?
Objectivity is something that has inherent qualities irrespective of personal beliefs. So when I ask you to objectively refute my claim, I'm asking you to point out a principle that has a specific, intrinsic value. No, I'm not asking you to justify a behavior, I'm asking you to tell me what makes it so. Like, if I asked you to tell me why 1 + 1 = 2, you could give me the objective principle that makes the equation correct without having to explain why adhering to it is beneficial to society.
Morality itself is not an appeal to anything. One can have personal morals that they do not expect anyone else to follow. Indeed, many people do; how often do you hear "But that's just me," or something similar? In fact, a current example of this is the topic of openly-gay professional athletes. Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson recently had this to say regarding gay marriage:
“To each his own. I’m not with it," Peterson said of gay marriage, via NESN.com. "But you know I have relatives that are gay. I’m not biased towards them. I still treat them the same. I love'em. But again, I’m not with that. That’s not something I believe in. But, to each his own. "
While his view on gay marriage is unfortunate, his willingness to accept that others feel differently - and unwillingness to impose his values on others - is commendable, and a perfect example of someone who doesn't assume that his way is the only way it should be done.
You wanna know what the moral basis is for treating women as equals? Look into your own soul. It is the belief that all human beings should be treated equally and fairly. It is a self-evident value that if you as a human being have natural rights in a society, then every other human must have them too. By this same principle we oppose ALL discrimination in fact. Racism. Ageism. Classism. Homophobia. Ethicism. Human beings HAVE these rights. And if someone else doesn't believe that than they are simply wrong.
You toss around terms like "self-evident," yet it clearly isn't, as there are many places in the world where people aren't treated equally, and many people in the world who believe the
opposite is self-evident. What do you make of that? It's your self-evident principle versus
their self-evident principle; so who's right?
Principles based on inherent natural value or rights ARE universal by nature. They ARE principles we should all follow. How can they not be, unless you are positing a race of beings that don't share our humanity.
Non-sequitur. Even antebellum slave owners believed their slaves to be human. You happen to believe that shared humanity is the only requisite for justification of equal rights, but not everyone shares your opinion.
If you do not believe human beings have inherent rights and responsibilities just by being human, then no you don't think your's or anyone else's morals apply universally. You'd say, "What I think should be done doesn't apply to anyone else but myself." But then how is that a moral? You're essentially decodifying a certain behavior and tying to your own unique circumstances and perspective. That's not a morality. That's just reasonable action. Like taking an umbrella with you in a rainstorm. You do it because it makes sense, not because you think it is the right thing to do.
Morals can apply to the person or to the group. There's no rule that says morality must be applied universally. If it were, then killing would be universally wrong regardless of context. Yet I don't think you'd try to say it is. The fact that you can justify an action in one context that would be immoral in another speaks to the fact that you don't think morals should apply universally
even just to you.
To put morality into context, all good deeds are done for selfish reasons, even if those selfish reasons are buried in your subconscious. When you do something to help another, even at your own expense, you're subconsciously propagating an action so that someone will do it for you if and when the time comes when you need help. So the usefulness of a deed does not invalidate it as a moral action.
Over and above being different races and creeds and cultures everyone on this planet shares a common humanity. It is a state of being that automatically comes with certain inherent rights and responsibilities.
According to whom? You realize not everyone shares this belief, don't you? Again, what makes your principle right while others are wrong? What's the essential rightness of your belief? You'll probably say that it's self-evident, but how do you solve the problem of someone else's self-evident belief being that not all humans deserve the same rights?
Even in the case of women being equal vs. women being property, we have the possibility of agreement by appealing to our common humanity. This is actually a quite modern and enlightened ethic that comes straight out of science. Science has more than any other value system allowed us to increasingly define ourselves in universal speciel terms that transcends culture and historical period. The absolutisms of each our own creeds and value systems have been superceded by the absolutism of a natural humanism.
Yes, but "common humanity" in and of itself does not have any intrinsic value. You must believe that it is worth something in order to appeal to it. It's like if I said we should all share equal rights because we're white. I would need to explain to you what the intrinsic value is of whiteness, wouldn't I? There are no self-evident moral truths regarding whiteness, correct? The same applies to humanity.
Surely you know this in yourself. Don't you agree there is inherent universal value in being a free and equal human being?
Inherent value? No. I believe there is a value to it, but I understand that it is derived from my own personal value system, not some intrinsic property within humanity.
The dehumanization of human beings. As Kant put it, Treating people as means instead of an end. The belief in the principle of equality assumes inherent value as a human being. That's how you justify your belief in it for ALL cultures. You judge that believing women and children are just objects to be used is inherently wrong. How do you rationalize it? You don't. You accept the self-evidence of your valuation as absolute and universally binding. Just like you accept the principles of logic the same way. That is what it means to make a moral judgement.
To say there is no rationalization in morality is absurd. Even objective values have a logical basis to them. "Why is this the way it is?" You can explain to me the principles behind 1 + 1 = 2, so surely you can explain to me the principle behind treating all others equally. And you have! You've told me it's because they have a shared humanity. What you
haven't done is tell me what makes humanity intrinsically valuable. Saying it's "self-evidently" true is silly, as there are people who believe the
opposite is self-evidently true, or at the very least don't see anything self-evident about it. In other words, it's no answer at all, and does nothing to explain why you believe what you believe.
But asked to give an account why you think that is a great movie (and notice "a great movie" is ALREADY an objective evaluation)
Woah, hold up. Pump the brakes.
Seriously? Saying something is great is an
objective statement? No, sorry, that's nakedly false. You seem to be very confused as to what subjective and objective actually mean. I'm not trying to be rude, but that's a pretty stunningly wrong statement you just made here. Opinions are not objective, MR.
you would list some aspects of it that exist objectively. The cinematography was well done. The acting was excellent. The dialogue was witty and engaging. The plot was intriguing and thought-provoking. You just can't say you really like a movie and then dismiss your own reasons for liking it as subjective tastes that have no root in the objective nature of the movie. Value, iow, objectifies itself as inherent to the object in the very act of judging. Ofcourse we are talking aesthetics here instead of morality. So there is certainly more subjective factors at play here there are in ethical decisions.
Of course I'd list objective aspects of it. Otherwise nobody would know what I was talking about. Imagine what I'd sound like if I were only mentioning the subjective things?
Me: "Dude, you gotta enjoy this. It's crazy awesome."
You: "What's awesome?"
Me: "It! Man, it was ridiculous. In a good way! I laughed, I gasped, I even cried once! Go love it yourself!"
Now, if I were only listing objective things, I would sound like this: "There was cinematography. Also, there was acting. And dialogue. It had a plot, as well." As you can see, speaking purely subjectively, which I would need to do in order to meet your standards of my review being subjective, you wouldn't have the first clue as to what I was talking about. And if I only spoke objectively, you'd have no idea how I felt about it.
Yes..a prime one being the inherent dignity and value of a human being. Based on this principle, which I accept unconditionally, I am against discrimination, torture, abuse, bullying, murder, slander, intolerance, bigotry, slavery, rape, brainwashing and many more things I can't think of right off. Do I have a rationale or logic for believing this principle? No. But then why should I? I take the principle as axiomatically as I take it that a=a or that it is good to be alive.
For one, you
don't accept this principle unconditionally. Do you believe in the death penalty? Do you believe in the killing of others to save innocents? Then you do not believe human value is unconditional.
Secondly, to accept that humans have inherent dignity and value requires you to make that judgment for yourself; it isn't self-evidently true.
Your confusing objectivity of principle with objectivity of reasoning. You overlook that an objective principle does not require objective reasoning to support it. It is of necessity true. It is as objectively true as the principles of logic are objectively true.
You're conflating determined value with the process of determining value. The value of a principle does not equate to the principles of logic. One is a determination, the other is a framework.
If your morality were simply a matter of individual tastes and preferences, then there's no reason to generalize your actions to a moral principle. There's no reason for saying good or bad or right or wrong since these adjective describe the objective value of acts themselves. You wouldn't iow be living by any moral principle at all anymore but more by a personal aesthetics of style. I don't doubt that some people can live like this, but I wouldn't call it morality anymore. More like the art of living a good..oops can't use THAT word..a beautiful or harmonious life!
Your reasons for invalidating individual principles as morals are entirely arbitrary, and make no apparent sense. How personal morals equate to style is entirely opaque, so you're going to have to explain it to me if you want me on board.
But morality IS the objectification of principle beyond just your own choice. It IS the acknowledgement of the inherence of the good or bad in your particular choice, it's objective value, and hence it's universal application to all humans.
No it isn't. That's simply how you view it. But there's nothing about morality that requires an objective measure, and indeed there seems to be no objective measure at all. Your answer to this is simply "I accept it unconditionally," but your acceptance of something without condition (even if it were true, which it isn't) doesn't equate to the principle being true. If it did, then the unconditional acceptance of God would mean that God really existed. It's circular: "This is true because I believe it; I believe it because it is true."
Nine times outta ten when we choose to act, we are simply being pragmatic and reasonable. We are choosing based on the reasonableness and logic of the action. But when we choose to act on principle, we are saying this action has inherent value beyond just being practical or logical. This is seen in the many times moral action is NOT the most logical or practical thing to do. Take homeless people for example. The practical and logical thing, without any respect to a moral principle, would be to simply round them up and kill them. It would better our society.
Would it better our society? I'm very confused by this idea that morality is inherent illogical. Being impractical is not the same as being illogical; one can act in an impractical manner while having a very logical concept in mind; ordering a huge cable television package and super-speed internet is impractical, but if it's available and you have the money, there's nothing illogical about it.
Helping disadvantaged people may put a person or group under great strain, but it can absolutely help better society.
And it would put alot of people out their misery. But is that the moral thing to do? Absolutely not. We respect their dignity as fellow human beings and try to help them. Once again, doing so because it is inherently good to do so without the need for logic or practical justification.
Sure. But that says nothing of it's objectivity. You still need to value "humanity" as a worthy quality.
I learned my moral code thru experimentation and direct experience and reflection.
Exactly. It is derived from subjective values personally held.
That it applies to everyone regardless of culture or creed or historical epoch. When I do something good for example the act itself has the objective property of being good. I assume this objectivity in the act itself. And this objectivity is universally true.
Do you not see the fallacy here? "It is true because I assume it is." Would that work in any other context, MR?