Is it possible for a moral judgment to be objectively true or false?

[Htom Sirveaux]

Or are moral judgments matters of opinion?

1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	It is possible for there to be objectively true or false moral judgments.
	0 (0%)
	Morality is a matter of opinion, and no opinion is more or less "right" than another.
	0 (0%)
	Other (please explain).
	1 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[LostOne4Ever]

1. I believe morality is relative

It depends on your perspective. Are you coming from a humanistic perspective? The general perspective of your particular culture? Your religion? Or what?

Further, I think, more or less, which view is more or less "right" depends on what frame of reference one is using.

PS:
I think Option 2 is poorly phrased. Saying that no opinion is more or less right than any other is an statement of moral objectivity imho.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. Morality is a cultural construct to make the lives of social animals run smoother.

A group where might makes right, and where an individual can kill any other individual for personal reasons, or just because doesn't function as a group. Societies of individuals create a set of rules and calls it moral. The origin of morality can be credited to a deity or to philosophers, but its purpose is to ease the conflicts between members of a group.

That is why there is no solid, one-to-one correspondence between cultures and sub-cultures on morality.

[Htom Sirveaux]

8. So what happens when groups disagree?

Does the morality of whichever group is stronger become *the morality*, or is there an objective standard that each group can be judged by?

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. That is the source of conflict. The religous right and liberal left disagree on concepts of morality

of sex and other issues. Religous right sees sex outside of marriage as immoral and even the use of contraceptves as immoral. The liberal left doesn't view sex as immoral unless it is non-consensual. The winners of a conflict define morality, just as the winners of a war write the histories.

[longship]

3. Not much choice there.

Artificial dichotomy.

Morals are undoubtedly cultural, and probably to a large extent evolutionary, in the biological sense. So they change over time.

I did not see that option.

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. But do any changes count as objective progress?

If so, that would accord with Option 1. If not, Option 2.

[longship]

9. If it in any way adaptive, one cannot say whether it is objective or an advancement.

Er, opinion, not advancement.

That's just not the way evolution works.

So, I guess I'll stick to Other.

Of course, this treads into evolutionary psychology which is a pond full of crocodiles. But I believe that's where morals originate. They certainly seem to form on evolutionary branches in humans and their other animal cousins. It's just hard to test it. (Hence, those crocs in the pond.)

Best regards.

[Prophet 451]

4. Interesting question

The honest answer is, I'm not sure. I think it is possible to have something be objectively right/wrong but only for that specific person/moment/culture. Possibly, morality is evolutionary. That is, it evolves to better serve our society. My faith has some moral rules but since I can't prove to you that my deity exists, I would have no business imposing that deity's moral ideas onto you.

[hrmjustin]

5. This is so hard to answer.

I must say I am torn on this question.

[stone space]

6. There is no objective reason why we should not incinerate the planet in a nuclear firestorm.

Obviously, I have my own opinion on the matter, but I don't see all opinions as somehow equal.

It's more than a mere opinion for me. It's an opinion that I feel strongly enough about to seek to impose it on others.

Your poll choices don't seem to have a place for moral opinions held strongly enough that I seek to impose them on others, even though I deny their objective nature.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Morality is not about truth.

Morality is about a subjective concept of right and wrong, a code of behavior within a particular culture. Certain mores may overlap all cultures, but they are still essentially subjective.

[cbayer]

11. I don't think there is any objective measure for morality.

Even when most, if not all, people would agree on a particular moral point, the only objective measurement would be that "most" people agree.

And even when most people agree, there are points of contention, contingencies, unanticipated circumstances that provide loopholes or areas wide open for debate.

Some of the most interesting academic experiences I have had revolved around moral/ethical dilemmas. The answers are sometimes very clear but very often not as clear as one might think.

As to the role of religion in moral judgement, I don't think it's a factor at all except for those individuals who draw their conclusions from their religious beliefs.

It is the case that most people, be they religious or not, will agree on some basic moral or ethical principles. There are no distinctions that I can see between what a theist or atheist hold up as these standards. They seem rooted in humanism no matter what one's theological position.

[Jim__]

12. Yes, of course it's possible.

To claim that is not possible for a moral judgement to be objective is to claim to know more about the nature of the universe than anyone currently knows.

The two questions that you ask: is it possible for a moral judgment to be objectively true or false and are moral judgments matters of opinion are not mutually exclusive.

I see morality as an aspect of humanity that evolved to allow a group of people to live together in harmony and to compete with other human groups. There are at least 3 different levels of morality. The top level is objective. There are certain moral rules that are held by all groups, for example, you can't murder another group member. A group that does not have these rules cannot compete with a group that does have them. Next there are rules that exist at the level of the group, for example, certain sexual mores, a common religion. The group can change these values, but changing them temporarily risks group coherence. Finally, there are individual moral rules, for instance, charity - charity, in this context, meaning a willingness to share personal resources with other group members that is not mandated by group rules. An individual may feel morally obligated to share resources with someone with much less.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. "you can't murder another group member" - what did you actually mean by that?

Did you mean "kill"? Or did you mean "illegally kill"? The latter is the definition of murder and if you meant that meaning, then that is somewhat circular as it implies a moral judgement on specific types of killing and applies generally to all forms of killing humans, in-group or otherwise.

If you meant simply "kill" then there are very few societies that have this as a general rule. Instead killing of humans in and out of "the group" is sanctioned for all sorts of situations. It is what we do, it is the one of the primary observable distinctions between humans and other creatures.

[Jim__]

15. I mean there must be a concept of murder - killing that the group will not tolerate.

In-group killing and out-group killing are not the same. A group can survive without any rules about out-group killing; but that depends upon the inter-group situation.

Killing our own kind is not a distinguishing characteristic of humans. Male chimps do kill other male chimps - mostly out-group killing, but also the occasional in-group killing.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. The rate at which we kill is pretty much unique.

Perhaps if chimps created communities as large as ours they might also exhibit similar rates.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Within an ethical system specific judgments can be true or false

however the system itself is something invented by humans and has no objective truth.

[skepticscott]

18. More to the point

If an actual "god" dictates a moral precept, does that make it objectively true, or deserving of greater weight? Or is anyone who derives moral precepts from a theistic religion deeply misguided?

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. The existence of objective morality has to be discussed and established

before we can reflect on its source.

[skepticscott]

21. Not at all

It's perfectly appropriate to discuss whether a particular source is necessarily a source of objective morality or not, even if the source is hypothetical.

[rug]

22. I notice you didn't commit to a vote.

Your view on religious morality is obvious.

But here's another particular source: Do you think there can be a nonreligious objective source of morality?

Here's your chance to contribute something instead of attempting to turn every thread into your pet peeve.

[Htom Sirveaux]

24. Very well, then.

Yes, I do think a deity could be a source of objective morality. I don't know that every conception of deity would qualify, though. I take it you do not think that any conception of deity could be such a source, or am I mistaken about that?

[Brettongarcia]

20. If a morality claims to be based on factual matters, but its facts are false, then...

It is a false morality.

So if I pin my morality in part to the belief that pigs can fly....

[enki23]

23. Ultimately it's all opinion.

A moral judgement is an argument that a particular behavior (yours, or others) is not consistent with the set of values you are currently thinking about.


*We don't all share the same values, obviously. But if we did, we would still disagree, because we weight them differently.

*Even if we did, we would still disagree because our values are not universal values (I value hitting you much higher than I value you hitting me).

*Even if we all gave the same set of values the same weights, and they were all universal, we would still disagree because these arguments can become extremely complicated, and we are all different degrees of stupid.

*Even if we all shared the same values, and gave them all the same weights, and they were all universal, and all of us were exceptionally not stupid, we would still disagree, because we aren't consistent.

*And even if we were consistent and not stupid, these problems are chaotic and nonlinear enough that there would often be more than one possible optimized answer.

So... yeah. Values are opinion. Morality is about being consistent with your values. Ethics are about adopting a set of rules that you think, in a meta sort of way, will help people be more consistent with your morals and values.

But at the bottom, it's just what you like, and don't like. But if you don't like human suffering, like most of us don't, we can try to convince people to have that same value, and weight it a hell of a lot more than the weight we give to the opinions of our imaginary morality-givers, which are at best only obliquely related to the problem of human suffering. Caring about how a god feels may, in some cases, be better than not caring at all. But in some cases its worse. And it's never as good as caring about how a person feels. At least, that's true for me. Because my opinion, my values, my sentiment lies here on earth with us "sinners".

[littlemissmartypants]

25. I have three brains.

Head brain.
Heart brain
And stomach brain.

I consult all three.

Love, Peace and Shelter. littlemissmartypants

[uriel1972]

26. No such thing as objectivity...

We are but fragile, fallible brans recieving all sensory data through the medium of a fragile, fallible body. How can we possibly say anything truly exists?

[rug]

27. Can we say anything is objectively wrong?

[uriel1972]

28. nope...

no such thing as obectivity. That said, we can create and encourage positive (in our opinion) moral codes without an objective certainty.

[rug]

29. How about corn flake crusted roast baby?

[mr blur]

34. No thanks, we ate at the Atheist Hate Meeting before we came in.

[rug]

36. I hope you had blood pudding for dessert.

[uriel1972]

37. I believe that it is wrong...

I am not so arrogant to assume my beliefs are encoded into the universe. As I keep saying there is no objectivity, but that does not preclude us from having values.

[cbayer]

30. I agree. Moral objectivity would require an authority of some sort.

[Brettongarcia]

31. Are all opinions therefore subjective, and equal? A 2-year-old and a professor?

[cbayer]

32. All opinions are subjective, but not equal.

They will vary deepening on education, experience, training and the use of data to inform them.

[Brettongarcia]

35. But now you're applying a standard

[intaglio]

33. The problem lies in the word "Moral"

Merriam-Webster defines "Moral" thusly, it does not define "Morals" as a separate word:

1

a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

In 1a) it refers to "principles of right and wrong" but principles can change circumstance as can ideas of right and wrong: sometimes it is not right to kill another, sometimes it is; some groups regarded incest as right many do not.
1b) Says that moral might be a conception of "right behavior" which you then express but that conception might not hold for another.
1c) Says moral conforms to a standard of "right behaviour" but that standard can vary with circumstance just as much as a principle.
1d) Relates morals to conscience but also allows ethics into the equation.
1e) Goes back to the idea of right and wrong.

Now ethics can be defined as

The branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles (Oxford Dictionaries)

But Ethics as a philosophical study falls loosely into 3 schools

The Aristotlean, saying that virtues are a preference to act in ways that can benefit both the person possessing those virtues as well as the society in which that person lives

Critical Philosophy founded by Kant that makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans, as rational beings, are duty bound, to obey a categorical imperative (an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself) to respect other rational beings.

The Utilitarian that asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number.

It is of interest that only Kant and his followers relate ethics to morality; Aristotle preferred the term "virtue" and Utilitarians the word benefit.