Oh boy this is actually backwards, the 2nd sentence should read:
Therefore, there must by SUBJECTIVE elements to morality.
Objective Moral Truth
- Thread starter swivel
- Start date
Oh boy this is actually backwards, the 2nd sentence should read:
Therefore, there must by SUBJECTIVE elements to morality.
Except when you are a sadist, although one could argue that then the harm wasn't unnecessery, but for the sadist's pleasure.
So if there were objective morals one should be able to list them.
swarm said:
An argument from incredulity would be "I can't believe that morals are subjective, so therefore they must be objective." You might want to review what I actually wrote.
So, at least within those cultures and contexts, there is objective agreement on morals.
In other words, you agree with me.
"Objective" basically means that people can find reasons outside the personal to justify their moral stance. So, if some morals are almost universal it would suggest to me that morals cannot be purely subjective. If they were, it would be an amazing coincidence to get almost universal agreement, would it not?
The "objective morality" of humans - the properties and structures of the intrinsic moral nature of all normal human beings - need not involve specific moral rules universally held. It could easily be situational.
One of the physical rules of human behavior is probably "stand up straight", for example. Another is probably "don't bang your head on the cave roof". The "objective physicality" of human behavior is probably situational.
One of the physical rules of human behavior is probably "stand up straight", for example. Another is probably "don't bang your head on the cave roof". The "objective physicality" of human behavior is probably situational.
How about: Do not betray your friends and family for money ?
There is nothing right or wrong but that thinking makes it so. - Wild Bill
Humans can't be objective.
The age of Earth is independent of observation.
Humans can't be objective.
The age of Earth is independent of observation.
scott3x said:
Except when you are a sadist, although one could argue that then the harm wasn't unnecessery, but for the sadist's pleasure.
That would be going down a -very- dangerous path in my view
. The only support for sadists are masochists. I've been told (not by a masochist mind you) that masochists have things to work out. Which, I think, is a polite way to say that they're a bit messed up .1- If someone is harmed unnecessarily, it's wrong ;-)
WHO decides when it's unnecessary?
God ofcourse
. The problem is that G-d frequently fails to make himself present, necesitating us mere mortals to guess ;-).
When everyone lies, where is the moral truth then?:shrug:
While everyone may lie, they don't lie all the time. I personally also like following quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
The truth gets out sooner or later
Exactly. There is no event that can not be spinned in a way that somebody profits from it.... Somebody got harmed seemingly unnecesserily? That creates jobs for doctors and for the police. See?
The alternative is worse; lynchings and -real- assaults (not the he/she wasn't old enough to engage in x, y or z) left unchecked, for instance.
God ofcourse
Gods can't be objective.
Are you telling me that 1 + 1 doesn’t always = 2
There is nothing subjective about mathematics in its purest form. Mathematicians can make mistakes or have different answers to complex problems, but it usually has nothing to do with subjectivity. There are times when a mathematician can have subjective opinions about some forms statistical data. It would usually involve data that was acquired from something like a sociology or psychological study. It is very difficult for a person to think about human behavior without having a subjective opinion. Trying to solve a problem by using statistics and probability is math. Trying to solve a problem by using statistics, probability, and your personal feelings is math and psychology / philosophy.
no
or in its simplest form
add -subtract -multiply and divide
agreed
so you see how by using mathematics then we still can have questions about the interpretation of the data supplied and the supplier
scott3x said:God ofcourse
Gods can't be objective.
It depends how you define God; notice mine was singular. I think that if you defined God as everything then yes, God could indeed be objective. Actually, if you define God this way, then God is always present; the problem is that many times we only see shards of God, not the whole. Anyone here see The Dark Crystal? Loved that movie
Like others here, I do not believe that objective morals exist. But people can still engage in rational moral argument if they agree on common moral axioms. It's much like math in that respect. You can't really prove that the axioms themselves are true, you just have to get people to go along with you on them for the sake of discussion. We might both agree that we should do whatever provides the greatest good for the greatest many, and then proceed to rationally argue about which course of action/law/whatever would meet that criteria. Or we could agree that we should do whatever the Bible tells us, and proceed to argue over what course of action best conforms to Biblical teachings. Or we could agree that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Or that we should do as we like to others before they do unto us.
I am not aware of any universally-held moral principles. And even if you could name one, that wouldn't prove anything about the objective correctness of that principle; at best, it would prove that societies which adhere to that particular principle are more stable or successful than societies that don't.
Last edited:
But there does seem to be a human moral nature - the question comes up: what does "objective" even mean here?nasor said:
Do humans have an objective physical nature? If so, how is it determined - not by reasoning from first principles or deduction from axioms, surely.
As far as a more or less universal human moral nature, a couple of nominations for its substance might be "Betrayal is wrong", "violence is a last resort".
Last edited: