Why We Cannot Know That Our Morals are Objective

[ArtieE]

So you saying that what we call morality evolved as a survival mechanism, is that correct?

Some behaviors are beneficial for the survival of the society and the people in it. Some are detrimental. We call these behaviors moral or immoral.

That the conscience, the seat of our moral sense is just a part of how we evolved, so when we feel guilt because we have harmed another it is because we have done something which is not beneficial to our survival.

In a society, if everybody went around harming others it would hardly be beneficial to the survival of the society.

Where did the impulse and awareness to seek our own species' survival come from?

Organisms evolved a survival instinct. Those who happened to evolve a brain wired with a survival instinct were the ones who survived.

And how would you account for the bad or guilty feelings we may feel when we unjustifiably kill an animal?

Our survival depends on a healthy ecosystem. Upsetting the natural balance is detrimental to us.

 

[ArtieE]

Sorry didn't see this. It is because of the law of the excluded middle. An act is either objectively moral or immoral or subjectively moral or immoral.

The objectively moral act is always the act that is most beneficial and least detrimental to the survival of the society and the individuals in it. People can have subjective opinions about what the objectively moral act actually is.

 

[ArtieE]

How about murder---rape---child abuse---stealing---destroying others property, private or public.

Those are all objectively immoral acts.

 

[omega2xx]

Those are all objectively immoral acts.

Right. So we can and do have objective moral standards.

 

[ArtieE]

Right. So we can and do have objective moral standards.

There are objectively moral acts. Those are the acts that are most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the society and the people in it. People can have subjective opinions about what the objectively moral act is. That doesn't mean morality (what IS right or wrong) is subjective.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry didn't see this. It is because of the law of the excluded middle. An act is either objectively moral or immoral or subjectively moral or immoral. To say that it is subjectively so is to say that it is not objectively so. It is possible to speak of two separate levels of morality, but this would be an equivocation.

Hmm...Seems to make sense to me. Sign me up for things being subjectively moral or immoral.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is murder not objective?

Nope.

 

[omega2xx]

Nope.

why not

 

[allfoak]

How about murder---rape---child abuse---stealing---destroying others property, private or public.

This is an interesting argument to the OP. As it must not be true in order for the OP to be true. Therefore, the OP must argue that the proposition "everything is moral" is objectively false. Thereby, falsifying the OP.

My post was in response to the OP.
If you read the quote i posted here you will see that my statement in reference to the OP, would ultimately prove to be false.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

why not

There have been multiple instances of 'moral' murder throughout history.
Google Salem, death's row, throwing homosexuals from rooftops, various wars and conflicts, drone strikes, Hiroshima, the Spanish Inquisition, Waco, honour killings, KKK lynchings, Roman crucifixions, Aztec sacrifice, Papuan canibalism...I mean, I could go on and on.

 

[allfoak]

There have been multiple instances of 'moral' murder throughout history.
Google Salem, death's row, throwing homosexuals from rooftops, various wars and conflicts, drone strikes, Hiroshima, the Spanish Inquisition, Waco, honour killings, KKK lynchings, Roman crucifixions, Aztec sacrifice, Papuan canibalism...I mean, I could go on and on.

Please do!
It was just starting to get exciting!

 

[omega2xx]

There are objectively moral acts. Those are the acts that are most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the society and the people in it. People can have subjective opinions about what the objectively moral act is. That doesn't mean morality (what IS right or wrong) is subjective.

I think there is agreement that murder is not a moral act. Most societies accept that adultery is immoral and there are many more where the majority of the society on what is immoral---rape--child abuse etc.

There have been multiple instances of 'moral' murder throughout history.
Google Salem, death's row, throwing homosexuals from rooftops, various wars and conflicts, drone strikes, Hiroshima, the Spanish Inquisition, Waco, honour killings, KKK lynchings, Roman crucifixions, Aztec sacrifice, Papuan canibalism...I mean, I could go on and on.

There is nothing in any that you mentions that makes the act moral. Most of them are killing, not murder.

 

[ArtieE]

There have been multiple instances of 'moral' murder throughout history.
Google Salem, death's row, throwing homosexuals from rooftops, various wars and conflicts, drone strikes, Hiroshima, the Spanish Inquisition, Waco, honour killings, KKK lynchings, Roman crucifixions, Aztec sacrifice, Papuan canibalism...I mean, I could go on and on.

There's no such thing as a moral murder. It's a contradiction in terms. Murder is per definition immoral.

 

[ArtieE]

I think there is agreement that murder is not a moral act. Most societies accept that adultery is immoral and there are many more where the majority of the society on what is immoral---rape--child abuse etc.

And the reason why there's agreement is that all those you mention are acts that are detrimental to society and individuals in it.

 

[omega2xx]

And the reason why there's agreement is that all those you mention are acts that are detrimental to society and individuals in it.

Right, so we do have some objective moral values.

 

[Curious George]

The objectively moral act is always the act that is most beneficial and least detrimental to the survival of the society and the individuals in it. People can have subjective opinions about what the objectively moral act actually is.

I have certainly heard this take on morality before, but it is begging the question. You are assuming morality a priori then evaluating. While I have a lot of respect for this ethical worldview because it offers and justifies objective morality without the invocation of a supreme deity, I do not know that it is a complete picture.

 

[Curious George]

Those are all objectively immoral acts.

According to what you posted earlier, these are commonly immoral acts. That is because they commonly cause detriment. Yet if the benefit of one of these acts to the majority outweighed the detriment to the majority it would be a moral act.

 

[ArtieE]

According to what you posted earlier, these are commonly immoral acts. That is because they commonly cause detriment. Yet if the benefit of one of these acts to the majority outweighed the detriment to the majority it would be a moral act.

Sure.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There's no such thing as a moral murder. It's a contradiction in terms. Murder is per definition immoral.

You might want to consider that it's how we define murder that is the differentiator. You don't consider laws objective, do you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is nothing in any that you mentions that makes the act moral. Most of them are killing, not murder.

Some of the perpetrators would see them as moral, or at least morally defensible. And they are murder or not based on laws, not morals.