Does objective morality exist?

[durutti]

What do you think?

I'd say it does. My personal beliefs on the matter gravitate mostly towards utilitarianism.

Pleasure is the only intrinsic good. We know instinctively that pleasure is good. We also know that pain is bad.

Therefore, something is good if the amount of pleasure it provides to people outweights the amount of pain.

[kixot]

1. Did you just get out of a Intro to Philosophy course or something?

Objective reality exists, the proof is that fact that there exists a name for it. The problem comes in defining it. Ultimately any definition is subjective, the subjective mind can not fully become objective in its perspective and so objective definitions are ultimately doomed.

That's the way I think it goes. Let me know if I missed anything or got anything wrong.

Also: If the basis of your definition is subjective pain or pleasure then this can not, by necessity, be an objective notion.

[dweller]

3. ...."exists a name for it".....

that's a proof?
there is a god.....

:eyes:
dp

[The Magistrate]

5. You May Well Laugh, Sir

But that has been used as a proof of diety....

"Kids say the darndest things!"

[dweller]

8. But in the eyes of a child

the seperation is unknown.

And semantics will never bridge a gulf that does not exist.
peace,
dp

[kixot]

9. Do not confuse philosophy with semantics.

That's something the mind of a child might do. :P

[dweller]

12. Was not my intention

but it is your playground, so was observing your 'rules'.
:eyes:

dp

[Mattforclark]

17. It's a bit more complicated than that...

not much though ;)

[kixot]

7. I'll contort the question to make it easier to understand.

If objective morality does not exist, what are talking about here? Also, why would we talk about a nonexistaent idea? Additionally, how would we conceptualize this nonexistent thing in order to talk about it to begin with?

You can't confuse this with the "Does God exist?" argument because it's not a question of the existence of a deity, but that of the existence of an idea. Once you acknowledge your understanding of what we both agree to be this idea, BAM!! It exists. Sort of a "cognito ergo sum" argument.

[The Magistrate]

11. Are You Seriously Maintaining, Sir

That it is impossible to talk about something that does not exist?

Perhaps a minute description of the physiology and mating habits of the unicorn could change your mind in that regard. It is quite possible to speak of non-exisistant things.

Your point could be that any moral system, including "absolute morality," is no more than a human idea, and therefore, to discuss it demonstrates its existance, as an idea. But that is not quite, it seems to me, what Mr. Durruti had in mind when he posed this small diversion to the Lounge. He seems to have had in mind an assertion there was some objective reality to absolute morality. Whether that is so is a seperate question from the sort of reality that can be demonstrated by showing the idea of absolute morality exists by citing the words "absolute morality" themselves.

You may not be familiar with the theological proof referenced, but it does seem to bear on the line you have advanced. It is an ingenious and entertaining piece of sophistry. It begins by postulating there is a perfect being, the diety, and then goes on to claim that since existence is a necessary attribute of perfection, the perfect being postulated must exist, else it could not be perfect, and since the diety must be perfect, or it could not be the diety, therefore it must exist. This imposed itself on theologians of Christendom and Islam well into the modern era as unassailable....

[kixot]

14. Not to confuse the existence of an idea with the existence of a "thing".

The sillyness of your initial comment aside,

Objective, or absolute, morality can not be said to be a moral system in itself, per se, but perhaps a relative measure within some arbitraty said system. I appreciate your summary of durutti's initial query but you yourself seem to miss its point. The question was "Does objective morality exist?", not if there is some objective reality to absolute morality. In this case "objective morality" describes a moral system that exists outside of and not influenced by subjective perception. That this exists is questionable, I propose that it does and sight the ability to conceptualize it at least in notion the way mathematicians conceptualize irrational numbers (pi, for instance) despite their intangibility as a pseudo-proof. "Absolute morality" describes an "over-system" of morality that can stand as authoritative to any other system of morality. These, then, can be shown to be distincly different ideas.

[The Magistrate]

15. A Distinction Without A Difference To Me, Sir

To ask if a thing exists is to ask if it has an objective reality.

In the realm of ideas, objective existence generally is taken to signify a thing discoverable by minds in all times and places, that will be discovered by them as the same thing, and so could be taken as existing independently of the minds that discover it.

In this sense, it seems reasonably certain no absolute morality does exist, for a variety of absolute moral systems have been proposed and adhered to by humans, but they differ in important details.

Irrational numbers have at least these attributes of existance: they work to solve equations, and all who wield them can agree on their identity in doing so. They do not "exist" merely because they are postulated, but because they function within an over-arching system.

Perhaps the real problem is the absolute lack of rum in the house, which shall be corrected in my impending expedition into the outside world for various sundries....

A pleasure to cross words with you, Sir!

[Terran]

2. But what happens when

people derive pleasure from inflicting pain on others without their consent? Bit of a contradiction, isn't it? And there are plenty of examples.

My 'feeling' (I'm not sure it amounts to a belief yet) is that the only evil is the wilfull taking of life (any life, human or otherwise). I tend to think that just about everything else is a matter of variable human opinion and perception.

[smirkymonkey]

13. Yes, but still that is relative and subjective...

I think most of us agree that murder is a bad thing, but what about self-defense or other situations where one may kill for a higher good or out of necessity.

Morality is an abstract, socially constructed concept that one cannot know as a thing-in-itself but only as it is perceived through reason and cognition, or perhaps even through spirit and emotion.

Who can define morality for all?

[The Magistrate]

4. Probably Not....

About all we have, Mr. Durruti, is relatives....

[gold_bug]

6. no.

It's opinion. Usually the whim of the majority.

For example, when you say "Pleasure is the only intrinsic good", good is your (subjective) evaluation of something (pleasure in this case?), that is, good dwells in a subjective ontology; and "pleasure" is nothing more than an epiphenomenon of chemicals dancing in the brain.

Ideas and thoughts are not objective.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

10. Reality is subjective by its nature... n/t

"The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence."

Dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reality

[Mattforclark]

16. Define terms

objective ?????????????????????????????

morality ??????????????

exist ????????????????????

Then perhaps an answer may be arrived at. I can think of multiple ways in which "objective reality" could either "exist" or "not exist" depending on what it is...






"Pleasure is the only intrinsic good. We know instinctively that pleasure is good. We also know that pain is bad."

There you are just defining good as pleasure and bad as pain. Some people will disagree with that.

And take for example light electric shocks - some people like them and think they are fun, others do not. What does that say about objective pain/pleasure?

[Exultant Democracy]

18. A most definite no

if you don't believe me ask Schrodinger's cat, if he is still alive that is.