Morality: Does it have an Objective Standard?

[Defender of Truth]

This is a thread where we can discuss whether morality has an Objective standard, or a Subjective standard.

I don't think anyone would claim that there is no such thing as morality, but if someone wishes to, they may do so here.

Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

[Defender of Truth]

You have not shown that there IS an objective standard.

You have made the claim, but you have not shown there actually is. You have admitted there is different morality between different times and different cultures.

Doesn't that show there is subjective morality?

You're right, I haven't yet show that there is an objective standard. I said in my previous post that there was evidence yet to be presented. I made the claim, but I don't expect you to believe it until you are confronted with evidence. What I have done, is proven a subjective standard grossly inadequate.

When did I admit there is different morality between different times and different cultures? I disagree with that statement!

There are objectively poor moral choices. So, I argue on the side Yes side of the question of whether there are objective moral standards. But unlike the theist, I don't look for a supernatural source for those standards. They are rooted in our biology, evolution, anthropology and sociology.

You say there are objectively poor moral choices. The question, then, is what makes it objective? You say that certain things are objectively wrong because of Biology, evolution, Anthropology, and Sociology. Please explain what you mean by this last statement.

What do you mean by "standards". There can't be more than one standard of morality. If there was, then which standard do we go by?

Under such a utilitarian system, actions are judged based upon how well they achieve some goal (usually happiness, although other goals appear as well).

What if I don't think that happiness is useful? If I do something that causes unhappiness, I am not wrong unless (1)something bigger than all of us says that happiness is useful and I must obey, or (2)we humans decided that happiness is useful (the latter one is a subjective standard, the former one is what I call God, what you call Biology, evolution, Anthropology, and Sociology). My job is to prove that Biology, evolution, Anthropology, and Sociology are subjective standards. Once I do that I disprove them as options for the standard of morality because we know that a subjective standard is inadequate as the standard of morality. However, I can't prove them as subjective until I know what you mean when you say them, so I'll have to wait for you to reply to this post

I'm trying to prove that what you're giving me as the standard of morality is subjective, and therefore inadequate.

As I said to goat, as soon as I show that the standards being given to me are inadequate, then I will give evidence for the standard that I believe is the true standard.

Good discussion, guys

Defender of Truth

[JoeyKnothead]

Cut to the chase. Offer one example of a moral value that is consistent across all cultures and all times or concede that morals are subjective.

[Defender of Truth]

Cut to the chase. Offer one example of a moral value that is consistent across all cultures and all times or concede that morals are subjective.

I will, I will. However, a good debater knows the power of order of events.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

It seems that there is widespread—if not universal—agreement on the notion that morality is objective, not subjective. Let me clarify. I do not mean to say that no one argues that morality is subjective. As a matter of fact, some do. What I mean is that virtually all of us, if we were to ponder for just a short while what a world without objective morality would be like, would agree that morality is an objective commodity. I think this is best seen by simply taking note of what it would mean for all morality to be subjective.

If we were to realize that all morality were subjective on a large scale, it probably would cause anarchy, as, without the illusion objective morality, one cannot fairly and effectively create and implement laws. That, however, does not mean that morality is objective. It merely means that it is much more convenient to think of it as objective to maintain order. What is logical or truthful isn't always practical, but practicality does not determine truth.

[McCulloch]

There are objectively poor moral choices. So, I argue on the side Yes side of the question of whether there are objective moral standards. But unlike the theist, I don't look for a supernatural source for those standards. They are rooted in our biology, evolution, anthropology and sociology.

You say there are objectively poor moral choices. The question, then, is what makes it objective? You say that certain things are objectively wrong because of Biology, evolution, Anthropology, and Sociology. Please explain what you mean by this last statement.

Let's make an example of theft. People benefit from re-using their things. We build tools and shelters. Now, in a society where property rights are not recognized, the people will spend quite a bit of energy and resources protecting their things from being taken by others. In another society where property rights are recognized, the effort that would have been spent on protecting one's property will be available to be used for more productive efforts. Thus that society will have a significant selective advantage over the first.

Mammals inherit behavior traits. Beavers, for example, are born with a compulsion to build dams. Humans seem to be born with an innate ability to learn language and to internalize their society's moral values. Our common moral values all seem to stem from two fundamental values, grasped very early in childhood: empathy and fairness.

What do you mean by "standards". There can't be more than one standard of morality. If there was, then which standard do we go by?

I did not mean to imply that there are different standards to choose from. More that in different areas there are different approaches.

Under such a utilitarian system, actions are judged based upon how well they achieve some goal (usually happiness, although other goals appear as well).

What if I don't think that happiness is useful?

Happiness is intended in the broadest sense, not merely transient joy, but overall contentment, security etc. I suppose that if you are a masochist, you may not value happiness, but the rest of us do, defined broadly enough.

If I do something that causes unhappiness, I am not wrong unless (1)something bigger than all of us says that happiness is useful and I must obey, or (2)we humans decided that happiness is useful (the latter one is a subjective standard, the former one is what I call God, what you call Biology, evolution, Anthropology, and Sociology).

But we cannot decide that happiness is useful any more than we can decide whether or not to like certain foods, smells or sex.

My job is to prove that Biology, evolution, Anthropology, and Sociology are subjective standards.

Good luck with that.

[JoeyKnothead]

Cut to the chase. Offer one example of a moral value that is consistent across all cultures and all times or concede that morals are subjective.

I will, I will. However, a good debater knows the power of order of events.

C'mon, its the intarwebatubes, folks have things to do, places to go, people to see.

Asserting that morals are objective is one thing. Proving such is another.

It could be said that a given moral principle is correct regardless of what folks in a given time or society do or say about such; that's fair enough. What can't be done however is showing where a given moral value is in place across all cultures at all times.

[Defender of Truth]

Let's make an example of theft. People benefit from re-using their things. We build tools and shelters. Now, in a society where property rights are not recognized, the people will spend quite a bit of energy and resources protecting their things from being taken by others. In another society where property rights are recognized, the effort that would have been spent on protecting one's property will be available to be used for more productive efforts. Thus that society will have a significant selective advantage over the first.

Mammals inherit behavior traits. Beavers, for example, are born with a compulsion to build dams. Humans seem to be born with an innate ability to learn language and to internalize their society's moral values. Our common moral values all seem to stem from two fundamental values, grasped very early in childhood: empathy and fairness.

Thank you for explaining your view. I understand it better, but I was unclear so I did some research on that certain viewpoint. I'm going to sum up what I think you're saying and tell me if I'm wrong.

Your model argues that moral awareness is a biological adaptation, a product of the evolutionary process. All humans have moral awareness because this awareness is of biological worth. We need it to survive. Your view states that the moral awareness we all have is just like our hands, feet, and teeth. According to the theory of evolution, these developed over the long evolutionary process as an adaptation making it possible for us to survive. Without them we couldn't stay alive. We would have been one of the species that went extinct (all of this is according to the theory of evolution, I don't represent this view. I'm just making sure that's clear). We couldn't survive without moral awareness any better than we could without hands, feet, or teeth. People holding this view challenge us to think about a group of people like us living togther who had no sense whatsoever that it was morally wrong to kill other humans for no reason, or to be dishonest as a normal way of living, or to act unfairly most of the time. Those people would be extinct before long.
According to you, man needs morals as an aid to human survival and reproduction. Not only that, but it's pretty clear that everyone has moral awareness. If we didn't get it by simply agreeing on it (which we didn't, that would be subjective) then we must have come upon it some other way. Your model says that this moral awareness developed as a biological adaption no less than our other adaptations. It's because of this that we have feelings of fairness.

Is that accurate? (It's logical, but I'm sure I can find something wrong with it)

[McCulloch]

Let's make an example of theft. People benefit from re-using their things. We build tools and shelters. Now, in a society where property rights are not recognized, the people will spend quite a bit of energy and resources protecting their things from being taken by others. In another society where property rights are recognized, the effort that would have been spent on protecting one's property will be available to be used for more productive efforts. Thus that society will have a significant selective advantage over the first.

Mammals inherit behavior traits. Beavers, for example, are born with a compulsion to build dams. Humans seem to be born with an innate ability to learn language and to internalize their society's moral values. Our common moral values all seem to stem from two fundamental values, grasped very early in childhood: empathy and fairness.

Thank you for explaining your view. I understand it better, but I was unclear so I did some research on that certain viewpoint. I'm going to sum up what I think you're saying and tell me if I'm wrong.

Your model argues that moral awareness is a biological adaptation, a product of the evolutionary process. All humans have moral awareness because this awareness is of biological worth. We need it to survive. Your view states that the moral awareness we all have is just like our hands, feet, and teeth. According to the theory of evolution, these developed over the long evolutionary process as an adaptation making it possible for us to survive. Without them we couldn't stay alive. We would have been one of the species that went extinct (all of this is according to the theory of evolution, I don't represent this view. I'm just making sure that's clear). We couldn't survive without moral awareness any better than we could without hands, feet, or teeth. People holding this view challenge us to think about a group of people like us living togther who had no sense whatsoever that it was morally wrong to kill other humans for no reason, or to be dishonest as a normal way of living, or to act unfairly most of the time. Those people would be extinct before long.
According to you, man needs morals as an aid to human survival and reproduction. Not only that, but it's pretty clear that everyone has moral awareness. If we didn't get it by simply agreeing on it (which we didn't, that would be subjective) then we must have come upon it some other way. Your model says that this moral awareness developed as a biological adaption no less than our other adaptations. It's because of this that we have feelings of fairness.

Is that accurate? (It's logical, but I'm sure I can find something wrong with it)

It is reasonably accurate. Remember that individual survival is unimportant in evolution. It is which genetic traits increase the probability of successfully reproducing.

[TheMessage]

It seems that there is widespread—if not universal—agreement on the notion that morality is objective, not subjective. Let me clarify. I do not mean to say that no one argues that morality is subjective. As a matter of fact, some do. What I mean is that virtually all of us, if we were to ponder for just a short while what a world without objective morality would be like, would agree that morality is an objective commodity. I think this is best seen by simply taking note of what it would mean for all morality to be subjective.

Let's imagine, for purposes of argument, that morality really were a strictly subjective commodity. What would follow from this? Well, first of all, this would mean that the moral statements we all make would be exactly like our judgements about the way things taste. There would be no question of their being right or wrong. Their truth, or shall we say correctness, would depend strictly upon the attitude, opinion or belief of the person making them. He or she is the individual subject.

I've read the whole thread but this is all I really feel the need to pick out so far. The bolded portion is correct, our ideas of morality are exactly like opinions... because they are. We each have our own idea of what is right and wrong, there is no 'objective morality'. We may like for there to be one, but that doesn't mean a thing. We don't even have a reason for believing that there might be one, let alone any evidence for such a statement.

[Cathar1950]

I don't want to repeat what Mack, Goat and Joe have explained so far as they have done a pretty good job of looking at the problems.
I am not sure the framing of the question is valid but I will try to get back to that later.
It is like reading a book.
The book is objective. The words, letters and ages are all objective. At least it is there even if I am not there. It is there to be examined by all.
But the book was written and it was a subjective endeavor to write.
I can help but approach the book except as an object and my approach and encounter is subjective.
Morality is an abstraction and to claim it is objective is to commit what Whitehead would call the fallacy of misplaced concrescence. In other words the concept is being mistaken as something concrete even if it is grounded in concrete reality.
If there was an objective morality then why the need to create laws and codes?
I think that it was Mack that pointed out that our moral development has to do with our sense of empathy and such. It is developed and it is subjective yet it is grounded in our biology, social realities, and language as if it were outside us.

I have often wondered how an God based morality would even work.
Much of the roots of our being are grounded in our experiences and social relationships and we do a pretty good job of imitation and we imitate to learn language and morality.
God as an unmoved mover can’t be imitated and seems to have no grounds for relationship. What could possible be moral to God? I am merely bringing God into it as I suspect the OP is trying to set up some need for God in the defense of objective morality with out having a clearly presented concept of Morality or Objective. What would morality be without humans? Yet animals show some sense of empathy, social bonding and the rudiments of what seems like morality to us.
I am just thinking out loud. I need coffee.