Is there any reason why morality is objective?

Jun 2015
5,723
UK
#1
I think people fear moral subjectivity.

But then if we take objective to mean something independent of human perception, then how are morals such? They're not like gravity, or the chemical composition of gold, or water. These are objective, morals imho are not.

What exactly constitutes a moral fact, and how do we prove it?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,519
#2
I think people fear moral subjectivity.

But then if we take objective to mean something independent of human perception, then how are morals such? They're not like gravity, or the chemical composition of gold, or water. These are objective, morals imho are not.

What exactly constitutes a moral fact, and how do we prove it?
Morals are based on observation of cause and effect....

To simplify with an example: humans have observed over time that killing someone leads to negative consequences (revenge, war etc....)... Hence its been declared immoral to kill (with some exceptions)... and everyone has been taught that it is immoral.... Except for a few perverts/eccentrics no one would claim that killing is in general moral (again with some justifiable exceptions such as executing criminals, killing in self defense etc...)...

Every "moral" rule can be traced back to observation of negative consequences for society as a whole.... Where it becomes tricky is that some behaviors that used to have serious consequences no longer do and so the corresponding moral rules are no longer relevant...
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,202
Welsh Marches
#3
Morality also has to do with goodness and virtue, and becoming a worthwhile and fully developed human being; the social effects of people's actions is only part of the question,an action or state of mind morally neutral just because it does not directly affect someone else. There are plenty of people of base and stunted character who never cause any harm to anyone else, often because they would not dare to because of the very limitations of their character!
 
Oct 2013
1,312
Monza, Italy
#4
One should consider religious and philosophical morals (Kant, universal rights supporters) to confute the ideas for which killing and thieft are wrong ecc....ecc...
 
Feb 2017
206
Canada
#5
Morals are always arbitrary and subjective, but behavior in the moral domain is constrained by the legal code of one's community.

"You're free to do what you like, but you're not free from the consequences of doing what you like"
 
May 2016
811
Vatican occupied America
#6
I think people fear moral subjectivity.

But then if we take objective to mean something independent of human perception, then how are morals such? They're not like gravity, or the chemical composition of gold, or water. These are objective, morals imho are not.

What exactly constitutes a moral fact, and how do we prove it?
Interesting, why do you think anyone would fear it?

'Objective' means factual and factual means something that's real. It does not mean 'independent of human perception'. When one is talking about material facts these are things that can be known by material observation and testing and publicly demonstrated as true. The chemical composition of gold and water are facts. Material facts are subject to public testing and demonstration by inductive reason. Inductive reasoning works only with matter and is a support form of reasoning with anything else.

As for the other type on reasoning it works by deductive reasoning, The most common form of everyone is familiar is mathematics. Deductive reasoning assists inductive reasoning, but is defective for determining any material fact, just as inductive reasoning can't prove any mental or mathematical fact. We all know that 2+2=4 and anyone claiming anything else is a mental defective who is not trying to gain knowledge of the real. You've been indoctrinated with the idea that there is no objective morality and that all things are relative all your life. This was an intentional indoctrination designed to destroy you're ability to reason and to make you easily socially engineered. Without deductive reason one can never discover objective morality.

[I need to stop now, I'm extremely weak and having a hard time concentrating and need to return to bed and one of the meds I'm taking is causing dizziness, have blurred vision too. Had a double CVI or is it CMI and have been in kidney failure. It's an operation in which they stick a shower hose down one's mouth while still awake and remove a gallstone blocking one's intestine. Have been in lots of low blood sugar since home too.]
 
Oct 2016
692
On a magic carpet
#7
Sorry to hear that, Disciple of Sophia. I hope you are feeling better soon. By all means, don't feel you owe any of us on this forum an explanation - your health really is far more important than an internet forum!

Get well soon :)

On the subject of objective versus subjective, they are themselves subjective. For example, one person may be adamant that something is true, while somebody else is equally adamant that it is not. One person's objective reality is another person's subjective opinion. Objective realities do exist but where exactly these end and subjective reality begins is fuel enough for endless debate.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,335
Las Vegas, NV USA
#8
Morality is essentially cultural, not biologic. However, as social animals, humans need rules to live together. This is true of all social animals. The rules vary among human societies but also share similarities. Perhaps under certain conditions humans will eat their young, but for the most part this is "immoral" in all human societies since it threatens the tribe's existence.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2017
425
Minneapolis
#10
I don't think morality can ever be truly objective because it's dependent on what one values. If you place your highest value on human life, then that will determine was you see as right and wrong. If you place your highest value on something like the health of the global ecology, then human life may seem less important. I can imagine someone believing the continuation of the global ecology depends on culling the human population to 500 million. That person's morality would be correct based on what she/he values.

Can we objectively determine how to prioritize our values? I don't think so.