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

[Logikal]

No. I do study philosophy, but if you think my thoughts reflect the average philosophy student you are painfully wrong. Especially when I've mentioned it at least twice now that academics and philosophers themselves do not like taking a position of subjective morality. However, those that do defend it, when they do it well, it is usually respected because it is regarded as a difficult subject to defend.
Now, if you would drop the assumptions that would be appreciated.

Taken from the OED:
Objective: 1. A thing or class of things external to or independent of the mind
That means something that is objective exists independent of us. There is nothing to demonstrate that any concept of morality exists outside of the culture that follows that given set or morals, except that as social animals we seem to have evolved the pro-social features that give us methods of group cohesion such as morality and ethics.

You have to be joking. I specifically stated to you the WORD OBJECTIVE has multiple contexts. So what does this person do? Go to the dictionary???
I used the word OBJECTIVE as used in philosophy.

Why do you people take the time to MAKE STUFF UP and pay attention when you feel like it.

Can you place your argument that we were talking about in the logical form as I asked and we will go over it? You do not understand concepts well.


I specifically stated MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE not subjective. So I don't know if you are thinking of someone else or it was a typo above.

 

[Willamena]

You are clearly using the wrong context to the word OBJECTIVE. In a moral context there is no reference to things or act being objectified.
What objective refers to is a type of truth. So when something is said to be OBJECTIVELY TRUE then the claim must hold universally, which implies the claim can never be false.

You are under some impression that when someone say something is objective you are using some grammar reference and then internalizing it.
You furthermore can't seem to live without authority telling you and others what to do. What do you mean standards are objective??? Authorities make the standards do they not?

What objective refers to is truth. Anything, including leaders, whose words or ideas you allow to be unquestioned and unconditional truth is an authority, and that includes the little voice inside telling you what is and isn't truth. That authority is objective, because in allowing it to dictate to you, you have pushed it "outside" to be something other than you, to be something greater than you, to be truth. In accepting an authority, we surrender free thinking.

 

[Logikal]

What objective refers to is truth. Anything, including leaders, whose words or ideas you allow to be unquestioned and unconditional truth is an authority, and that includes the little voice inside telling you what is and isn't truth. That authority is objective, because in allowing it to dictate to you, you have pushed it "outside" to be something other than you, to be something greater than you, to be truth. In accepting an authority, we surrender free thinking.

This is nonsense. Objective facts have absolutely nothing to do with human beings at all. If there were no human beings things can still be objective.

Your context of the SAME WORD has more to do with GRAMMAR and you refuse to recognize that fact. This is why you think the way you do. You clearly are TAUGHT to kiss up. However as an adult his should not be the case MORALLY!
When you give unconditional power to someone over YOU there can be cases that person in authority will abuse said power. For instance, A marine must obey orders unconditionally. Do you think marines are not abused ever? There s a link between Marines and psychological problems.

These are samples not my thinking.

 

[Willamena]

This is nonsense. Objective facts have absolutely nothing to do with human beings at all. If there were no human beings things can still be objective.

This is poorly worded. Objective facts are truth regardless of what people think. If they are facts about people, then they most certainly do have something to do with human beings. And, if there were no human beings, there could be no one to judge it "objective."

Your context of the SAME WORD has more to do with GRAMMAR and you refuse to recognize that fact. This is why you think the way you do. You clearly are TAUGHT to kiss up. However as an adult his should not be the case MORALLY!
When you give unconditional power to someone over YOU there can be cases that person in authority will abuse said power. For instance, A marine must obey orders unconditionally. Do you think marines are not abused ever? There s a link between Marines and psychological problems.

These are samples not my thinking.

Free thinking is superior to surrender to authority.

 

[Logikal]

This is poorly worded. Objective facts are truth regardless of what people think. If they are facts about people, then they most certainly do have something to do with human beings. And, if there were no human beings, there could be no one to judge it "objective."


Free thinking is superior to surrender to authority.

That is what the WORLD THINKS that everything is subjective and people determine objectivity. No training in philosophy is required to think like this.
Objective facts are true regardless AND IT IS STILL OBJECTIVE aid there never were humans. People have nothing to do with objective facts. People can influence subjective issues.

 

[Nous]

Evolution and natural selection provided us with the standard.

Prove it.

And can you guess why we instinctively try to stop people from committing suicide?

In a number of countries and a couple of US states, the law allows physicians to assist people in ending their lives.

And you already said above, among the many different things you've said about the persons stranded on the deserted island, that the "objectively moral" thing would be for the adult to kill himself in order to leave all the food yo the child. It's funny that you claim that humans have some genetic moral code, but you can't figure out what is the "objectively moral" thing to do in a given situation.

 

[Nous]

Nothing is inherently wrong, unless we personally agree that it is.

So as long as the child rapist does not agree that raping 3-year-old children is wrong, raping children isn't wrong.

Thank God most people have a better moral compass than you do.

 

[Nous]

What you describe has many subjective attributes, because it is of course, common to all cultures and religions 'in one form or another, and how the Golden Rule is effective in persuading people to treat others a little more nicely than they might otherwise.' is in reality a highly subjective of how the groups and individuals interpret the 'golden rule/'

Obviously the fact that "groups and individuals" interpret the Golden Rule differently does not mean that isn't an objective moral standard.

 

[Willamena]

So as long as the child rapist does not agree that raping 3-year-old children is wrong, raping children isn't wrong.

Thank God most people have a better moral compass than you do.

That's poorly argumentative. That it's not inherently wrong does not mean that it isn't judged "wrong."

 

[Nous]

That's poorly argumentative. That it's not inherently wrong does not mean that it isn't judged "wrong."

You have just succinctly expressed the irrationality of relativism--"Rape isn't really immoral. But I judge it to be immoral." "I believe that we live on the third planet from the sun, but I know that isn't really true."

Thank you for demonstrating the inherent irrationality of moral relativism.

 

[Willamena]

You have just succinctly expressed the irrationality of relativism--"Rape isn't really immoral. But I judge it to be immoral." "I believe that we live on the third planet from the sun, but I know that isn't really true."

Thank you for demonstrating the inherent irrationality of moral relativism.

Explain, please.

How does what I said reflect relativism?

I was speaking about two distinct contexts.

 

[Logikal]

That is what the WORLD THINKS that everything is subjective and people determine objectivity. No training in philosophy is required to think like this.
Objective facts are true regardless AND IT IS STILL OBJECTIVE aid there never were humans. People have nothing to do with objective facts. People can influence subjective issues.

Nothing is JUDGED objective. This is a concept that exists without thoughts of people. We're there Dinosaurs without the existence of people? Scientific Evidence suggest this is the case. So objectively there were no human being when dinosaurs roamed the earth. The claim dinosaurs once roamed the earth is and always was objective from the start. If a tree falls in the Forrest and no one is there to hear it the tree either literally falls or not. Regardless if there is anyone to hear the tree fall or not. The claim Planet X has non human life forms running around rampantly is either objectively true or false. There is life on the SUN is either objectively true or false. Elvis is still alive is objectively true or false. There is a GOD is objectively true or false.

Where the emotional folk meet the road is the part where someone says this stuff is unknowable and because they can't sense verify the claim the claim has no truth value. When you start to think this way you have studied psychology for quite some time knowlingly or not.

 

[ArtieE]

And you already said above, among the many different things you've said about the persons stranded on the deserted island, that the "objectively moral" thing would be for the adult to kill himself in order to leave all the food yo the child. It's funny that you claim that humans have some genetic moral code, but you can't figure out what is the "objectively moral" thing to do in a given situation.

In any given situation the objectively moral thing to do is the thing that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of society and the people in it.

 

[Nous]

Explain, please.

How does what I said reflect relativism?

I was speaking about two distinct contexts.

You said, "That it's not inherently wrong does not mean that it isn't judged "wrong." But why would someone "judge" rape of a 3-year-old child to be immoral if it isn't immoral?

That's the conundrum moral relativists get themselves into. "Rape is not really, objectively immoral. But I believe it is immoral."

 

[Nous]

In any given situation the objectively moral thing to do is the thing that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of society and the people in it.

Prove it. So, if your car is barreling toward 2 elderly people who are about to die, you should steer it away from them so that you will only hit one Einstein instead?

By the way, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to substantiate your claim that "Evolution and natural selection provided us with the [objectively moral] standard." Why would anyone believe such nonsense?

 

[ArtieE]

Prove it. So, if your car is barreling toward 2 elderly people who are about to die, you should steer it away from them so that you will only hit one Einstein instead?

I always try to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of my society and people. You don't?

By the way, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to substantiate your claim that "Evolution and natural selection provided us with the [objectively moral] standard." Why would anyone believe such nonsense?

They can just put in "the evolution of morality" in Google and read all the interesting information that comes up. Amazon.com also has many good books about the subject.

Edit: the evolution of morality - Google Scholar

 

[shunyadragon]

Obviously the fact that "groups and individuals" interpret the Golden Rule differently does not mean that isn't an objective moral standard.

No, but it indicates that there are 'subjective attributes' of the 'Golden Rule.'

 

[Nous]

I always try to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of my society and people.

Hitler tried to do what is most beneficial to his society and world by getting rid of Jews.

They can just put in "the evolution of morality" in Google and read all the interesting information that comes up.

So you can't argue your claim about humans--of all creatures on earth--somehow evolving a special sort of "survival instinct" that somehow has given us the objective moral standard?

 

[Nous]

No, but it indicates that there are 'subjective attributes' of the 'Golden Rule.'

No, it doesn't. The fact that people may have interpreted General Relativity in some different way than it's normally interpreted doesn't mean that there are "subjective attributes" to that theory.

 

[shunyadragon]

Prove it. So, if your car is barreling toward 2 elderly people who are about to die, you should steer it away from them so that you will only hit one Einstein instead?

You are presenting a 'subjective' decision and a very human problem, and not one that substantiates an sort of 'objective oral standard.'

By the way, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to substantiate your claim that "Evolution and natural selection provided us with the [objectively moral] standard." Why would anyone believe such nonsense?

There is no objective evidence for the existence of any sort of "objectively moral standard," and the science of evolution makes no such claim. There is a vast amount of evidence that morals and ethics naturally evolved, and science of anthropology and sociology provide further foundations for the natural basis of morals and ethics.