Objective Moral Truth
- Thread starter swivel
- Start date
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Even if there were an objective moral truth, there is no objective way to distinguish it from all the falsehoods.
A great man once said,
And what he meant by that is that truth, and morality are largely dependant on the culture and times in which we live. And that even during our lifetimes, these morals and values can change and can differ from one culture to another. Because of this, there cannot be a objective moral truth.
Tribes in New Guinea used to practice cannibalism as a way to honour the dead, by literally taking the dead into themselves. They believed this was the only way to keep the persons memory. We, from the outside thought it immoral and barbaric.
And, objective moral truth would also be complicated by religion, because of it's own inherent beliefs of right and wrong. There can be no objective moral truths because of the influence of a God or Gods on the majority of the worlds population.
Robert Frost said:
And what he meant by that is that truth, and morality are largely dependant on the culture and times in which we live. And that even during our lifetimes, these morals and values can change and can differ from one culture to another. Because of this, there cannot be a objective moral truth.
Tribes in New Guinea used to practice cannibalism as a way to honour the dead, by literally taking the dead into themselves. They believed this was the only way to keep the persons memory. We, from the outside thought it immoral and barbaric.
And, objective moral truth would also be complicated by religion, because of it's own inherent beliefs of right and wrong. There can be no objective moral truths because of the influence of a God or Gods on the majority of the worlds population.
Sex between a brother and a sister seems like one. There is such a strong prevention built into our genes that this doesn't even have to be a law in most societies. And even chimps raised apart can sense relatedness from pheromones and refuse to mate with one another. The fact that exceptions to this rule are extremely few and far between, and met with disgust in all societies seems to make it an Objective Moral Evil.
I would contend that our objective sense arises from a shared genetic history. That the urge to preserve oneself and the innate sense of fairness create a "don't-kill-me-and-I-won't-kill-you" version of the Golden Rule. So much of human behavior is the same across all cultures, and the greater we expand human freedom and inclusiveness, the more we seem to be converging on some approximation of this Objective Moral Truth.
post #6
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Not so with humans, though, twins separated at birth often feel a strong sexual attraction. See, for example, here stating "We have a resistance, a very strong incest taboo where we are aware that someone is a biological relative . . . But when we are unaware of that relationship, we are naturally drawn to people who are quite similar to ourselves."
Humans really do look for mates with traits similar to family members. Freud was overdoing things, but there are a lot of women who look for men like their fathers and guys who look for women like their mothers. If evolution had trained us to seek out genetic differences, I'd have expected less resistance to interracial dating.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
The problem is twofold: First, not everyone will agree on the factors to be used as a measure. Second, no one will agree the results of the measurement. Boiling those factors above down to a single set of objective numbers (showing whether a given action promotes or detracts from the factor, and by how much) so that we can objectively determine which acts are "moral" and which are not is too complicated.
Think of it this way. It would be much easier to figure out is discrimination is a significant factor in hiring, because that is a narrower question. That said, the public iis all over the map. Some say there is no longer discrimination, some even say that there is, and that it is bias against white males.
Even easier, take the age of the Earth. How many people right here on these firms think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old? If we can't convince them otherwise on that, what hope is there? (The irony being, that the age of the Earth is of course not an objective fact at all, it is a relative fact, based on one's frame of reference. If you were traveling at close to the speed of light for the past 4.5 billion years my time, then to you the Earth might be just 10,000 years old.)
That would depend on what they were relative to.
An argument about what morality required in this or that situation would not necessarily be an empty one.
There is obviously some kind of basic human propensity toward holding morals in common with one's fellows. So there is probably some kind of intrinsic moral nature to human beings (and some research supporting that). But that doesn't mean any particular expression of it is somehow "objective" morality, any more than a given language is "objective".
irrelevant
the truth in my statement holds true
no numbers needed
the truth is the truth regardless of the " numbers "
You should go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of the word objective.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
If you read some of my previous posts pertaining to ethics, morality, and justice you may have noticed that I often use the words logical and illogical to describe my perception of right and wrong. Math is logic. Numbers (mathematics) is the only objective truth. Everything else pertaining to ethics, morality, and justice is purely subjective.
What a ridiculous argument from incredulity. That is a waste of time therefor I'm right.
First it is trivial to show at the very least the vast majority of morals are relative to culture and context. People have an extraordinary breadth to what they find acceptable.
A very, very few morals seem almost universal. But does that mean they are based on objective elements or just popular or humans really aren't that different?
What are these objective elements which "must be?" If they are so objective, why are they so hard to find and agree on?
There are societies where this is accepted.
It is really hard to find things which every known society prohibits.
All I can think of off hand is sex with an infant.
I think we can all agree that if someone is harmed unnecessarily, it's wrong. so I think we can agree that an adult male having sexual intercourse with a baby would harm them would be wrong. On the other hand, I've heard that in Africa, mothers sometimes performed felatio on infants to get them to go to sleep or perhaps calm them down. I googled a lot right now though, and couldn't find it at all; perhaps it's not very common. As to masochists.. um.. I'm sorry, I just don't understand them very well. I remember one person telling me that they had to work things out with themselves. I can go for that. I just don't want any part of it
. I'm sure I've hurt people with words when I'm upset or what not; but I would -not- be happy if the person I'm upset with enjoyed being put down; that would just be.. no .
Last edited:
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
If you select criteria against which to measure morality, then that morality is not "objective truth." The moral rules may be objective within its own assumptions, but the entire basis of that morality will still be based in a questionable assumptions.
In other words, I may completely agree with you that if you base morality on what best enhances survivability of the species, then the rules you derive from that premise are correct....but then tell you that your morality fails anyway because I reject survivability as the basis for morality.
That is begging the question. You assume that the "truth" is objective, but the whole point is that moral truths are not clearly so.
I dont believe in objective moral truths. Mass appeal and consensus among society doesnt make a moral truth a moral fact, although it's the case in more situations.
Lets say we live in 1840 in the Confederate States of the Union. Slavery is common, and perfectly okay according to mass appeal and consensus among our society. Lets hypothetically take it one step further and say that after centuries of slavery, (since 1555), we believe slavery to be an objective moral truth.
Now fast forward to today. Obviously the consensus among society isnt that slavery is okay. So that is very good evidence that morality differs with time and space. If this is the case, then how can objective moral truths be in fact objective?
What was considered beyond a shadow of a doubt moral in Europe the 1600's is not considered objectively moral in 2009 in Japan.
Unless you can show me an example of an "objective moral truth" that stands the test of time, and space, morality IMO seems to be subjective at least to some degree.
Lets say we live in 1840 in the Confederate States of the Union. Slavery is common, and perfectly okay according to mass appeal and consensus among our society. Lets hypothetically take it one step further and say that after centuries of slavery, (since 1555), we believe slavery to be an objective moral truth.
Now fast forward to today. Obviously the consensus among society isnt that slavery is okay. So that is very good evidence that morality differs with time and space. If this is the case, then how can objective moral truths be in fact objective?
What was considered beyond a shadow of a doubt moral in Europe the 1600's is not considered objectively moral in 2009 in Japan.
Unless you can show me an example of an "objective moral truth" that stands the test of time, and space, morality IMO seems to be subjective at least to some degree.
What if they are trully in love, middle aged and don't want children?