Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

[jonathan180iq]

Well I can give this test a go around. Let us start with the OBJECTIVE FACT that every proposition can be denied. So I hope you are not going to perform that route JUST BECAUSE you can and it is legal. I am expecting you to be better than that.

So here we go. Lets us take a look a Hitler and the Nazi regime. Most humans already chime in emotionally here but still IS TORTUIRING and MURDERING sets of HUMAN BEINGS morally WRONG?

Let's state some facts. The human beings in this scenario were usually adult human beings. These adult human beings already had lives before their capture. These human beings were taken against their free will. These human being were forced to endure physical pain and other physical hardships involuntarily and could have survived without undergoing such treatment.

Let me say these combined facts lead a rational person to say the acts inflicted on the Jews were morally wrong and regardless of race, color or religion the same acts would be UNIVERSALLY wrong no matter which human beings I chose.
Let's start here.

What is it that you want to know?
Do I personally believe that the atrocities of the Holocaust were morally wrong? Of course I do.
My personal moral code is actually quite strict, considering what I'm arguing for in this conversation. But none of that matters as you're missing the whole point of this thread.

What does it matter if you or I think it's wrong to slaughter whole eithnicites through attrition? What does it matter if we agree that even one killing is morally wrong? We aren't talking about whether or not someone feels or agrees that something is morally wrong - we are debating the claim that morality is objective. I maintain that it is not.

To this point of the conversation, no one has made a decent argument for the position of objective morality, they've simply stated that it must be, usually adding a theological prerequisite to it.

Is it objectively wrong to harm others in order to achieve selfish goals? The answer to that question, almost without exception, is that it depends on who the enemy is and what one is trying to accomplish.

Morality is much more complicated than simply asking if the Nazi's were bad. (Being aware, of course, that those very same Nazis believed that they were somehow doing right.) We can look at this from a personal or social perspective, but regardless of which one you choose, you're still going to find that morality works on a scale, not in bullet points.

• Is it morally wrong to kill someone?
  • Yes!
• Is killing someone always wrong?
  • Yes...
• Is killing someone wrong when it can be justified by defense of person or nation?
  • ....I...I don't know. It depends.
• Is it wrong to kill even when God tells you to do it?
  • ...Well, that's different...
• Is it wrong to kill someone through indirect action, like supporting a society that routinely kills innocents as part of it's global peace policy?
  • That's ridiculous! You're just being difficult!

If any question after the first one results in any answer other than YES, then killing people isn't actually wrong, is it? How can something that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong be considered objectively true? Apply that questioning scale to yourself and to your country. Then apply that same scale to your Nazi hypothetical... Are the answers any different?

 

[ArtieE]

• Is it morally wrong to kill someone?
  • Yes!
• Is killing someone always wrong?
  • Yes...
• Is killing someone wrong when it can be justified by defense of person or nation?
  • ....I...I don't know. It depends.
• Is it wrong to kill even when God tells you to do it?
  • ...Well, that's different...
• Is it wrong to kill someone through indirect action, like supporting a society that routinely kills innocents as part of it's global peace policy?
  • That's ridiculous! You're just being difficult!

If any question after the first one results in any answer other than YES, then killing people isn't actually wrong, is it? How can something that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong be considered objectively true?

You are constantly confusing objective with universal. Killing isn't UNIVERSALLY objectively wrong, that is objectively wrong in every instant. It is objectively right in some circumstances and objectively wrong in other.

 

[Logikal]

What is it that you want to know?
Do I personally believe that the atrocities of the Holocaust were morally wrong? Of course I do.
My personal moral code is actually quite strict, considering what I'm arguing for in this conversation. But none of that matters as you're missing the whole point of this thread.

What does it matter if you or I think it's wrong to slaughter whole eithnicites through attrition? What does it matter if we agree that even one killing is morally wrong? We aren't talking about whether or not someone feels or agrees that something is morally wrong - we are debating the claim that morality is objective. I maintain that it is not.

To this point of the conversation, no one has made a decent argument for the position of objective morality, they've simply stated that it must be, usually adding a theological prerequisite to it.

Is it objectively wrong to harm others in order to achieve selfish goals? The answer to that question, almost without exception, is that it depends on who the enemy is and what one is trying to accomplish.

Morality is much more complicated than simply asking if the Nazi's were bad. (Being aware, of course, that those very same Nazis believed that they were somehow doing right.) We can look at this from a personal or social perspective, but regardless of which one you choose, you're still going to find that morality works on a scale, not in bullet points.

• Is it morally wrong to kill someone?
  • Yes!
• Is killing someone always wrong?
  • Yes...
• Is killing someone wrong when it can be justified by defense of person or nation?
  • ....I...I don't know. It depends.
• Is it wrong to kill even when God tells you to do it?
  • ...Well, that's different...
• Is it wrong to kill someone through indirect action, like supporting a society that routinely kills innocents as part of it's global peace policy?
  • That's ridiculous! You're just being difficult!

If any question after the first one results in any answer other than YES, then killing people isn't actually wrong, is it? How can something that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong be considered objectively true? Apply that questioning scale to yourself and to your country. Then apply that same scale to your Nazi hypothetical... Are the answers any different?

I never asked what YOU THOUGHT. In my last post I stated that the FACTS I listed about the Nazi treat of the Jews would indicate that the ACTS performed to the Jews was morally wrong. Thinking and opinion have little to do with what I stated. You only have to think if the claims I stated as fact are true claims; otherwise the claims are not factual. The facts which MUST BE TRUE in order to use that word have to be rate and if so these help gauge what the moral value is.

If you have understood what Objective meant in the context I stated (the correct context) then there is no IT DEPENDS stuff going on. Morals are 24/7 and 24 hours. What you want to suggest is a Tuesday and Thursday morality and misuse the term objective. If I tell you act x is IMMORAL then there is no case where it should be permissible under the same circumstances. This should be understood when I said moral is universal and FOREVER once we get the specific details listed. What emotional people HATE to do is list specific details about a circumstance: they rather make a general claim and then judge specific claims latter on. This is a sign people are miseducated about the proper definitions of deduction and induction. I have seen the same error hundreds of times that deduction goes from general to specific. This is so false and people buy it. It seems you want to play the same game but I will not fall for it. Be specific where you CAN and don't ry to bait people by starting general and switching moods of conversation like most folk do.
You cannot ask is killing a human being immoral like that WITHOUT THE SPECIFICS of the scenario. What slick folk do is to as a general question and then get specific when they refute the answer. No you question was GENERAL and the answer you should expect should ALSO BE GENERAL. You ask a specific question with specific details then you should expect a specific answer.

In the case of your moral questions about killing someone I would OBJECTIVELY say YES in theory. Notice I did not say the answer is practical. In theory you should never ever kill another human being under ANY circumstance whatsoever. There are NO EXCEPTIONS with moral claims. This is why they are universal.
In defense of country is no excuse. In self defense there is no excuse. In case of a home invasion there is
no excuse and so on. All that means is there are WAYS that can subdue an opponent without KILLING THEM. You not being skilled enough is YOUR EXCUSE for you to kill. Get more understanding and MORE SKILL. This is taught in PROPER MARTIAL ARTS. When an insufficient opponent starts to lose OR doesn't want to lose the fight he STARTS CHEATING: pulling a weapon, calling friends to help, etc. A skilled person does not need to do EXTRA stuff to win. So we are speaking on a person who lack SKILLS in most self defense cases. There are some immoral martial artist who teach killing techniques and this is because they lack something called stamina. This is HARD to maintain as one ages. There is a reason you don't see 80 year old BJJ guys in current tournaments rolling with the YOUNG AND HEALTHY 23 year olds. Thus these types of martial arts are like steroids but people don't see it. Learn proper skill sets and you would not have to worry as much.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You are constantly confusing objective with universal. Killing isn't UNIVERSALLY objectively wrong, that is objectively wrong in every instant. It is objectively right in some circumstances and objectively wrong in other.

In order for morals to be objective in the sense that people want them to be for theological reasons, (like this thread) objective morals must necessarily be universal.

How can one argue for objective morality on the one hand and admit that morality is subjective on the other?

A metric being accepted in one scenario and rejected in another is the very definition of subjectivity.

 

[jonathan180iq]

In my last post I stated that the FACTS I listed about the Nazi treat of the Jews would indicate that the ACTS performed to the Jews was morally wrong.

And what you've still failed to answer is the explanation of why those acts are morally wrong...

If you cannot answer that, then your point does not stand, regardless of how assured you may be in your assertion.

 

[ArtieE]

In order for morals to be objective in the sense that people want them to be for theological reasons, (like this thread) objective morals must necessarily be universal.

You still can't tell the difference between universal and objective? The generally objectively right way to behave for organisms with a survival/self-preservation instinct is obviously to behave in such a way that they increase or at least don't decrease their chances of survival. So the objectively right action depends on the circumstances they're in. There is no one universal behavior that fits every circumstance. Sometimes it's objectively right to kill, sometimes it isn't.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You still can't tell the difference between universal and objective?

You still can't tell the difference between your approach and mine?

We're talking about two different things, man. I qualified my conversation in my response to you. Read it again.

You aren't wrong. But you aren't talking about what I'm talking about.

 

[ArtieE]

You still can't tell the difference between your approach and mine?

We're talking about two different things, man. I qualified my conversation in my response to you. Read it again.

You aren't wrong. But you aren't talking about what I'm talking about.

The generally objectively right way to behave for organisms with a survival/self-preservation instinct is obviously to behave in such a way that they increase or at least don't decrease their chances of survival. So the objectively right action depends on the circumstances they're in. There is no one universal behavior that fits every circumstance. Sometimes it's objectively right to kill, sometimes it isn't.

Do you understand the point? Yes or no?

 

[jonathan180iq]

The generally objectively right way to behave for organisms with a survival/self-preservation instinct is obviously to behave in such a way that they increase or at least don't decrease their chances of survival. So the objectively right action depends on the circumstances they're in. There is no one universal behavior that fits every circumstance. Sometimes it's objectively right to kill, sometimes it isn't.

Do you understand the point? Yes or no?

Yes... which is exactly why I said "you aren't wrong."

If the metric used is simply what is beneficial for survival in each moment then whatever action is necessary for survival/self preservation becomes the objectively right action. That's simple. That's also not what I'm addressing, at all.

(Notice that You have established a metric by which your idea of objective morality can be measured. Others have not... That is what is at issue here.)

The issue of Objective Morality, for the vast majority of this thread and the one that gets passed around at dinner tables, hinges on the idea of a moral origin and is founded on a god concept. That's the standard theistic approach to explaining morality - giving credit, as they always do, to the invisible, magic flavor of the month. Under that umbrella, the metric for their claim of objectivity depends entirely on a loose and subjective definitions of god(s) and his character. By it's very nature, bringing a creator god into the mix, this line of reasoning requires that objective morals must also be universal.

Do you understand the difference? Yes or no?

 

[ArtieE]

Yes... which is exactly why I said "you aren't wrong."

If the metric used is simply what is beneficial for survival in each moment then whatever action is necessary for survival/self preservation becomes the objectively right action. That's simple. That's also not what I'm addressing, at all.

(Notice that You have established a metric by which your idea of objective morality can be measured. Others have not... That is what is at issue here.)

The issue of Objective Morality, for the vast majority of this thread and the one that gets passed around at dinner tables, hinges on the idea of a moral origin and is founded on a god concept. That's the standard theistic approach to explaining morality - giving credit, as they always do, to the invisible, magic flavor of the month. Under that umbrella, the metric for their claim of objectivity depends entirely on a loose and subjective definitions of god(s) and his character. By it's very nature, bringing a creator god into the mix, this line of reasoning requires that objective morals must also be universal.

Do you understand the difference? Yes or no?

No... why would objective morals also be universal if you attribute them to a god? Why would that make killing objectively universally wrong? Can't a god say "you can kill those but not those"?

 

[Willamena]

You are constantly confusing objective with universal. Killing isn't UNIVERSALLY objectively wrong, that is objectively wrong in every instant. It is objectively right in some circumstances and objectively wrong in other.

Universal doesn't mean "in every instant," unless "objectively wrong" were meant to apply to every instant, which of course it isn't.

Universal in this case more closely means, "with every occurrence." If every occurrence, or more specifically every conceivable occurrence, of this act is wrong, then it is universally wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is among the things you have saidrove your claim that people's varying interpretations of a rule or law means that the rule or law has "subjective attributes."

Nothing is proven. What you keep referring simply fits the definition of 'subjective' in the English language.

 

[Nous]

Again: "From an objective point of view there are objectively right and wrong ways for organisms with an evolved survival/self-preservation instinct to behave. The objectively right way to behave is to behave in such a way that it increases chances of survival and the objectively wrong way is to behave in such a way that it decreases chances of survival. Since we are social animals living in communities and living in communities increases our chances of survival the objectively right way for us to behave is to behave in such a way that we keep our communities healthy and well functioning. The objectively right way for us to behave is to help each other survive because that increases our chances of survival. We call behaving the right way behaving morally and behaving the wrong way behaving immorally."

Why don't you tell us where I'm wrong?

It's pure nonsense that isn't deduced from any evidence. The "survival instinct"--which all animals have, and which is generally referred to as the "fight or flight" instinct--has nothing to with what acts are moral or immoral for humans to do. The fact that a human individual (unarmed) will attempt to avoid confrontation with a lion and will attempt to flee (e.g., up a tree) in order to escape a lion has no connection with what is moral or immoral for that human to do in relation to other humans or the world generally. Obviously you are unable to argue that there is any connection between the two.

All animal individuals apparently have some general "fight or flight" instinct in the face of dangerous situations (note that the definition you quoted above specified "dangerous" situations). But apparently no animal other than humans has discerned general moral precepts such as the Golden Rule.

You demonstrate how confused your ideas here are by conflating the individual "fight or flight" instinct with something having to do with survival of a community, family, group, or whole species. Again, there is no moral imperative that any human group or community or the species as a whole survive and flourish.

You just haven't made sense in trying to connect the (highly complex) issues of morality among humans and "survival". Initially you claimed that humans "evolved" an instinct to survive (which requires a change in allele frequency in a population); now you have repudiated that idea and asserted that humans "evolved with" a survival instinct.

If humans "evolved with" an instinct that induces us to act morally, then why do we so often act immorally?

 

[Nous]

Yes, I disagree with Artie's view. There is no objective evidence for any so called objective moral rules. There are clearly morals and ethics in all human societies and cultures

Why would human societies and cultures consistently expend all the energy and resources trying to encourage or enforce moral behavior (such as not killing your neighbor in order to drive his car), if no moral rule is "objective"?

What is not objectively true about the fact that a human society would be a much more pleasant place if everyone treated others as one wishes to be treated by others?

The genetic relationship to the survival instinct and purpose in humans as well as all animals and plants in the history of life is documented in the thousands of academic books and journals

Just cite the studies. We already know you can make that claim. What you have failed to do with substantiate that your claim is true.

As cited there is abundant documented records of both suicides, and self-sacrifice of animals to protect the young and the heard.

You haven't cited any evidence of any non-human animal committing suicide. You noted a single anecdote about a dog that could be interpreted in any number of ways (such as maybe the dog was trying to wash something noxious out of his eyes).

Apparently you think that "abundant documented records" refute the proposition that animals have a survival instinct, which is the basis of Artie's ideas about morality among humans. How do you reconcile all of your claimed "abundant documented records of both suicides, and self-sacrifice" among non-human animals with what you claim is a genetic instinct to survive?

 

[Nous]

Nothing is proven.

So you can't substantiate your claim that something "indicates that there are 'subjective attributes' of the 'Golden Rule.'" Got it.

 

[Nous]

The emoji has nothing to do with the scenario you've presented and everything to do with your assertion that because I don't believe morality is objective that I support such a scenario...

What is the reason that you don't "support" people engaging in acts (such as rape) that you don't believe are immoral?

You're against people enjoying themselves?

 

[ArtieE]

It's pure nonsense that isn't deduced from any evidence. The "survival instinct"--which all animals have, and which is generally referred to as the "fight or flight" instinct--has nothing to with what acts are moral or immoral for humans to do. The fact that a human individual (unarmed) will attempt to avoid confrontation with a lion and will attempt to flee (e.g., up a tree) in order to escape a lion has no connection with what is moral or immoral for that human to do in relation to other humans or the world generally. Obviously you are unable to argue that there is any connection between the two.

I think it would be pretty obvious that people who don't want to die would say it's immoral and wrong to cause people to die.

All animal individuals apparently have some general "fight or flight" instinct in the face of dangerous situations (note that the definition you quoted above specified "dangerous" situations). But apparently no animal other than humans has discerned general moral precepts such as the Golden Rule

The Golden Rule. Reciprocal Altruism. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. Even a vampire bat shares food with starving roost mates. It's a simple survival strategy.

 

[ArtieE]

Why would human societies and cultures consistently expend all the energy and resources trying to encourage or enforce moral behavior (such as not killing your neighbor in order to drive his car)

Because human societies and cultures consist of people who don't want to be killed.

 

[Nous]

Because human societies and cultures consist of people who don't want to be killed.

What demonstrates the nonsense of your "theory" here is your inability to connect that fact (if it were a fact--some humans do wish to die) with the provision of objective moral precepts. Non-human animals also demonstrate a similar fight-or-flight instinct as humans do, yet do not abide by the moral precepts that humans do (e.g., male lions commonly commit infanticide of cubs sired by other males, which would be highly illegal for a human).

 

[ArtieE]

What demonstrates the nonsense of your "theory" here is your inability to connect that fact (if it were a fact--some humans do wish to die) with the provision of objective moral precepts. Non-human animals also demonstrate a similar fight-or-flight instinct as humans do, yet do not abide by the moral precepts that humans do (e.g., male lions commonly commit infanticide of cubs sired by other males, which would be highly illegal for a human).

ROTFL male lions obviously "don't abide by the moral precepts that humans do" because they are lions and not humans...