Talk:Objective morality
This page is very problematic as it stands (clearly not in line with Rationalwiki's attempts to actually engage with serious research and scholarship) ,and obviously written by someone with no background in moral theory. The fact is that most moral philosophers adhere to the claim that there are objective standards for what is morally right and wrong insofar as moral relativism is an insane idea with utterly unacceptable consequences, such as the impossibility of valid moral criticism of other practices, the impossibility of moral progress, its incompatibility with such cherished notions as tolerance, the impossibility of moral learning (and hence the pointlessness of listening to other points of view since it is impossible in principle that you would learn something from them), and the fact that relativism appears to imply that if you are in the minority in your culture regarding a moral question you are, by definition, wrong. Of course, giving an objective standard for normative claims is tricky, but the alternative is moral nihilism, not relativism (even those who attempt to ground ethics in emotion or non-truth-tracking practices take avoidance of relativism to be a criterion for whether the theory works).
Though claiming that an objective morality must be based on God is popular among non-philosophers, few moral philosophers through the ages have even contemplated this idea (Ockham may be an exception). This is because attempting to ground morality in God fails for several obvious reasons, the primary ones being the Euthyphro Contrast and the obvious naturalistic fallacy involved.
Among secular attempts to ground a universal morality in something objective, the most famous and at least among the most influential attempts is Kant's. Kant attempted to ground morality in rationality itself and argued (roughly) that failure to recognize moral duties was a failure in rationality and ultimate a failure to be a rational agent. Kant's arguments have been criticized, refined, and criticized again, of course, but a page called "objective morality" ought at least to engage with them, as well as other attempts to ground morality (e.g. in empathy or some form of moral realism, or even "a universal moral grammar").
Given that I haven't really built a track record with rationalwiki I didn't want to start trying to delete pages yet, but I would like to alert more experiences editors about the existence of pages like this one.— Unsigned, by: G.D. / talk / contribs
- You're right, it's not a very good article, and needs serious improvement. You seem pretty well-grounded in the relevant theory, so you could help if you'd like. Otherwise, I suppose I will try to tackle it when I find time.--
talk
01:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can get around to it (I'm not really an expert here, and I don't have too much wiki experience and may want to start with some minor edits first. — Unsigned, by: G.D. / talk / contribs 00:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that you are describing "normative" relatism, not its "descriptive" and "meta-ethical" counterparts.
Acer Blue 01:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- This was the article I had in mind when I made {{cynic}}. It made it so people could recognize we're not a bunch of amoral psychopaths, even if the article seemed as though it was written by one.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Peter Singer said that objective morality has been "out of fashion since the 1930s" among moral philosophers, in consequence of which moral philosophers who talk about it have not been able to make much headway. I am inclined to think he knows what he is talking about. But I agree that other secular treatments rate a mention.
ListenerXTalkerX 02:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Peter Singer said that objective morality has been "out of fashion since the 1930s" among moral philosophers, in consequence of which moral philosophers who talk about it have not been able to make much headway. I am inclined to think he knows what he is talking about. But I agree that other secular treatments rate a mention.
- This was the article I had in mind when I made {{cynic}}. It made it so people could recognize we're not a bunch of amoral psychopaths, even if the article seemed as though it was written by one.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that you are describing "normative" relatism, not its "descriptive" and "meta-ethical" counterparts.
- I'll see if I can get around to it (I'm not really an expert here, and I don't have too much wiki experience and may want to start with some minor edits first. — Unsigned, by: G.D. / talk / contribs 00:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Consequentialism and its progeny Utilitarianism
I would have thought that consequentialism and its progeny Utilitarianism could provide a non-theistic moral philosophy. But not being an expert I'm disinclined to edit the article.--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- But how do you draw the line between objectivity and subjectivity in matters like consequentialist or utilitarian morality? Nullahnung (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure how you would draw that line in any system of morality. It seems to me that, in point of fact, people subjectively decide on their moral position and then look to their moral philosophy to justify it after the fact. The smarter people are the better they are at getting their moral philosophy to justify their existing positions.
- Nevertheless, I could argue - in support of utilitarianism - that the idea of decreasing pain or improving human welfare is a self-evident good.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Science Based Morality
If there is such a thing as objective morality it has to be science based. If it's not science based then where would objective morality come from? Science does have answers if you accept the basis that the positive evolution of humanity is better than the extinction of humanity. And since morality is a human construct then if humans go extinct morality goes away.