A Critique on Objective Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by creativesoul » Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:27 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:Anyone of you people have an argument?
Of course. The concept "objective morality", has been thoroughly debunked and no one has stepped up to refute that, nor defend the term.
This thread died on page one.
I also find that objective morality is a misnomer, however I find very little to no use for the subjective/objective dichotomy. Morality is a code of conduct. I would argue in favor of universal morality, if what counts as being universal is properly set out.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:26 am

creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:Anyone of you people have an argument?
Of course. The concept "objective morality", has been thoroughly debunked and no one has stepped up to refute that, nor defend the term.
This thread died on page one.
I also find that objective morality is a misnomer, however I find very little to no use for the subjective/objective dichotomy. Morality is a code of conduct. I would argue in favor of universal morality, if what counts as being universal is properly set out.
"Properly"? :lol: According to you?
This is exactly the problem. Who gets to make the rules?

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by creativesoul » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:24 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Of course. The concept "objective morality", has been thoroughly debunked and no one has stepped up to refute that, nor defend the term.
This thread died on page one.
I also find that objective morality is a misnomer, however I find very little to no use for the subjective/objective dichotomy. Morality is a code of conduct. I would argue in favor of universal morality, if what counts as being universal is properly set out.
"Properly"? :lol: According to you?
This is exactly the problem. Who gets to make the rules?
This totally misses the point being made.

Properly setting out what counts as being universal is subject to rules of language, which is to say that it is subject to the rules regarding what counts as being meaningful. Those rules are not the same as the ones setting out what counts as acceptable and/or unacceptable behaviour(morality).

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Gary Childress » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:02 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:Anyone of you people have an argument?
Of course. The concept "objective morality", has been thoroughly debunked and no one has stepped up to refute that, nor defend the term.
This thread died on page one.
What about the concept of "subjective morality"? Has it been debunked? :?:

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:30 pm

creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
I also find that objective morality is a misnomer, however I find very little to no use for the subjective/objective dichotomy. Morality is a code of conduct. I would argue in favor of universal morality, if what counts as being universal is properly set out.
"Properly"? :lol: According to you?
This is exactly the problem. Who gets to make the rules?
This totally misses the point being made.

Properly setting out what counts as being universal is subject to rules of language, which is to say that it is subject to the rules regarding what counts as being meaningful. Those rules are not the same as the ones setting out what counts as acceptable and/or unacceptable behaviour(morality).
Rubbish.
You said "I would argue in favor of universal morality, if what counts as being universal is properly set out."
What would that morality look like?
And who would make the rules?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:Anyone of you people have an argument?
Of course. The concept "objective morality", has been thoroughly debunked and no one has stepped up to refute that, nor defend the term.
This thread died on page one.
What about the concept of "subjective morality"? Has it been debunked? :?:
I'm not even sure that is a meaningful question.
We base our morality of a combination of things such as how we feel, what our experience is; what we think is appropriate; what we can get away with; what makes us angry...

What is there to debunk exactly?

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Gary Childress » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:39 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
"Properly"? :lol: According to you?
This is exactly the problem. Who gets to make the rules?
This totally misses the point being made.

Properly setting out what counts as being universal is subject to rules of language, which is to say that it is subject to the rules regarding what counts as being meaningful. Those rules are not the same as the ones setting out what counts as acceptable and/or unacceptable behaviour(morality).
Rubbish.
You said "I would argue in favor of universal morality, if what counts as being universal is properly set out."
What would that morality look like?
And who would make the rules?
If the two questions above aren't answered in the span of this forum, does that necessarily mean that there is or can be no such thing as objective morality? It seems to me possibly that an objective morality could conceiveably exist but has simply not yet been discovered or worked out yet.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Gary Childress » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:59 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Of course. The concept "objective morality", has been thoroughly debunked and no one has stepped up to refute that, nor defend the term.
This thread died on page one.
What about the concept of "subjective morality"? Has it been debunked? :?:
I'm not even sure that is a meaningful question.
We base our morality of a combination of things such as how we feel, what our experience is; what we think is appropriate; what we can get away with; what makes us angry...

What is there to debunk exactly?
For starters what exactly is "subjective" morality? Morality is something that occurs between more than one person. Inwardly I may think that I "ought" to be king of the universe, does that mean it's "moral" in my "subjective" world or whatever that I be king of the universe? Is doing what we can "get away with" "moral" or is that more like "amoral" or "immoral"? Apologies if I am misunderstanding your response.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by creativesoul » Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:55 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
"Properly"? :lol: According to you?
This is exactly the problem. Who gets to make the rules?
This totally misses the point being made.

Properly setting out what counts as being universal is subject to rules of language, which is to say that it is subject to the rules regarding what counts as being meaningful. Those rules are not the same as the ones setting out what counts as acceptable and/or unacceptable behaviour(morality).
Rubbish.
You said "I would argue in favor of universal morality, if what counts as being universal is properly set out."
What would that morality look like?
And who would make the rules?
We make the rules of morality. We do not make the rules governing what language acquisition requires. Both of those claims are true regardless of individual particulars.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Gary Childress » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:10 am

creativesoul wrote:We make the rules of morality.
Do we really? Can we be certain? If quantum physics is correct then many of our common sense conceptions of reality are essentially wrong. We can maybe understand the world through mathematics and numbers but outside of that it seems like we humans are pretty clueless. And morality is not something that can be derived through mathematics. I encounter morality as something imposed upon me by encountering others, not something either I or the other person "creates". When I encounter someone we seldom seem to sit down and sign a social contract or proceed to engage in a philosophical discourse beforehand. Usually the encounter is one where we are either in some agreement over morality or else we sort of slowly work things out somehow (when there is good will present between us).

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
This totally misses the point being made.

Properly setting out what counts as being universal is subject to rules of language, which is to say that it is subject to the rules regarding what counts as being meaningful. Those rules are not the same as the ones setting out what counts as acceptable and/or unacceptable behaviour(morality).
Rubbish.
You said "I would argue in favor of universal morality, if what counts as being universal is properly set out."
What would that morality look like?
And who would make the rules?
If the two questions above aren't answered in the span of this forum, does that necessarily mean that there is or can be no such thing as objective morality? It seems to me possibly that an objective morality could conceiveably exist but has simply not yet been discovered or worked out yet.
In what way can you conceive it?
Define 'objective' , and then try to tag it to morality!
You simply cannot.
Morality is about how people feel and opine. Objective in the sense of existing independently of humans cannot apply.
If you have another view of objective then let me know.

But please don't run away from the question. Some things are not just 'undiscovered', but inherently false.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:25 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
What about the concept of "subjective morality"? Has it been debunked? :?:
I'm not even sure that is a meaningful question.
We base our morality of a combination of things such as how we feel, what our experience is; what we think is appropriate; what we can get away with; what makes us angry...

What is there to debunk exactly?
For starters what exactly is "subjective" morality? Morality is something that occurs between more than one person. Inwardly I may think that I "ought" to be king of the universe, does that mean it's "moral" in my "subjective" world or whatever that I be king of the universe? Is doing what we can "get away with" "moral" or is that more like "amoral" or "immoral"? Apologies if I am misunderstanding your response.
What is 'subjective morality"?
Listen buddy - its your phrase not mine!! :D
Yes morality requires more than one person, but "IT" cannot exist between them. It has to reside as an idea within us.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Gary Childress » Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:44 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I'm not even sure that is a meaningful question.
We base our morality of a combination of things such as how we feel, what our experience is; what we think is appropriate; what we can get away with; what makes us angry...

What is there to debunk exactly?
For starters what exactly is "subjective" morality? Morality is something that occurs between more than one person. Inwardly I may think that I "ought" to be king of the universe, does that mean it's "moral" in my "subjective" world or whatever that I be king of the universe? Is doing what we can "get away with" "moral" or is that more like "amoral" or "immoral"? Apologies if I am misunderstanding your response.
What is 'subjective morality"?
Listen buddy - its your phrase not mine!! :D
Yes morality requires more than one person, but "IT" cannot exist between them. It has to reside as an idea within us.
I don't know where "in" or "outside" of us plays in the realm of ideas in a "physical" world. I suppose all ideas are in a sense "within" us. I apologize if maybe I'm misunderstanding what is meant by moral "objectivity" and "subjectivity". I thought moral "objectivity" meant a morality that is universally applicable to all individuals, groups or cultures as opposed to the notion that morality is relative to a particular individual, group or culture (or what I was thinking meant "subjective"). So for example I thought a "moral subjectivist" might believe that if a particular group of people all think that X were morally acceptable, then they are no more right or wrong than a group of people who think X is not. A moral "objectivist" would think that there are universal ideals that can be applied across all individuals, cultures and groups. Maybe I'm confused in the terminology.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by creativesoul » Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:39 pm

Well, morality is defined in today's convention as a code of conduct. By definition it is subject/relative to historical, cultural, and familial particulars.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: A Critique on Objective Morality

Post by Gary Childress » Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:01 pm

creativesoul wrote:Well, morality is defined in today's convention as a code of conduct. By definition it is subject/relative to historical, cultural, and familial particulars.
When you say "it is subject/relative to historical, cultural and familial particlars" is that to say that one set of morals practiced by one historial, cultural or familial group is just as good as any other? Or that there is/can be no universal morality (or "code of conduct" as you phrase it)?

Or maybe I'm just on a differnt page?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest