For something to be objective, it doesn’t need to be common or even nearly unanimous.
And not all morality is objective.
Perhaps one way to demonstrate this is to illustrate that that is how we live.
I reiterate the definition I used earlier, that objective morality is
“the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person’s subjective opinion, but factually true.”
My view is that sane, civilised human beings understand that the torture of a child is morally wrong, and that that is not just a subjective viewpoint but an objective one.
It is morally wrong to torture an innocent child, even when the culture allows it. Or do you disagree?
Again, it depends what you mean by evidence.
But you’re using the near-universality of the abhorrence to child torture as evidence of objective morality. You cannot merely handwave away evidence that disproves your argument without committing a No True Scotsman fallacy.
It’s very easy to explain. It just doesn’t have anything to do with an “objective morality”, whose existence you have completely failed to support with evidence. Just because you keep saying objective morality exists does not mean it actually exists.
Please expand on this. I imagine he means “verifiable facts that support an assertion”, or something close to that.
Easily- a society judges that cultural bonds are more important than bonds of blood. Having more children has obvious benefits for supporting a culture (when there is enough food and resources, of course), so getting a “free” child through adoption can have obvious benefits.
We have a view that those actions were wrong. I see no reason to believe that we have an innate view that they were so. The perpetrators thought they were doing a good thing.
Perhaps because it makes you feel good, or because you think it is your duty due to your moral and/or religious system. I see no reason to believe that it is because of some objective moral system, especially considering that so many people do not sponsor young african children.
What have you got?
Never heard of the word before? What have you got?
Exactly. “Sane” people agree with me about the objective morality of child torture.
There are apparently 28 cultures that routinely practice female genital mutilation on girls between the ages of four and ten years. Are these cultures “insane”? Are the individuals within them “insane”?
Based on what criteria?
Why doesn’t the External Agent instill objective morality into them?
How about closer to home. Male circumcision. It appears this is widespread in the US. While not as bad as the female thing, it is still mutilation.
That’s a possible example, but it is not as clear. Since many believe that it helps prevent disease, competing moral principles might be in effect. On the other hand, if torture is objectively prohibited, how does it get balanced with competing moral principles?
I don’t need argumentation. I provided evidence many posts ago. A rather significant number of societies have permitted children to be “removed” from their families by leaving them out to die. Now, regardless whether that child died of hunger, dehydration, freezing, or torn by wild animals, that child was subjected to what any rational person would recognize as torture. It was placed in a position where it could not escape and subjected to pain until its death. If infanticide was routinely carried out by snapping the neck or even suffocation, you might get away with a claim of no torture, but exposure (the most common method) can only “objectively” be described as torture.
(And I now notice that you are throwing in the adjective “civilized” which indicates that the rules are set by society and not by some “objective” agent, otherwise you would be able to make the same (erroneous) claim regarding all societies, civilized or not. By throwing in the “civilized” limit, you are, effectively, placing the origin of the “morality” within the society, since you do not insist that it occurs in all societies.)
Beyond that, of course, you are still ignoring the fact that multiple posters replied with “naturalistic” explanations while you persist in pretending that no one has answered your claim.
And you have failed to demonstrate your claim.
You insist that torturing children is objectively wrong, then go on to weasel out of every exception that is provided to your claim. You are back to simply saying that an act is objectively wrong because you declare it to be objectively wrong.
I gratuitously deny your gratuitous assertion.
And, again, you have failed to demonstrate that the several “naturalistic” proposals do not successfully explain the perceived morality. You have not provided any reason to accept your denial. In your case, you are gratuitously denying assertions backed by evidence.
Your ability to persuade anyone of your beliefs is hindered by your own failure to actually make a point that stands up to examination.
Well doesn’t this nicely show exactly how a practice that is abhorrent to most of humanity, can be quite acceptable to another culture. Yours in this case.
If you maintain that “Objective Morality” flows from, and must flow from, a specific intelligent source, like a Deity, you have founded your ideas on the unprovable.
It’s perfectly reasonable to presume that as animals become more complex and intelligent, that behaviors will evolve, and ways of thinking linked to physical changes in the brain, that favor “moral” actions. In primitive forms, a mother wolf tenderly cares for her pup, and viciously defends it. In the case of a more complex and intelligent creature, a human, that behavior has many psychological aspects, since we are self aware … we think differently than lower animals, and we have developed such a complex and intricate set of responses and stimuli that we sum these emotions and visceral instinctual feeling up with words like “morals” or “Good and Evil”, when really, they are just highly evolved natural tendencies that promote social structure and non-destructive behavior. We’ve given names to a more highly refined version of the mother wolf’s instincts. A Deity is not required to explain morality, we’ve evolved to be moral … it increases our chance of survival and procreation.
On reflection, this sounds kinda specific for a carefully unspecified external agent, don’t you think?
Not only that, but if this “external agent” is the soul arbiter of what is or isn’t moral, then anything this “external agent” puts forth is automatically moral by definition…no matter how horrendous we mere mortals think it to be.
In wonder what Intrinsicvalue 's intrinsic value is? Is it set by the same external agent? Do we all have the same intrinsic value, or are we all worth different amounts? Can we raise or lower it by our actions?
I mean, maybe I could raise my intrinsic value by by helping a little old lady across the street, or lower it by shoving her in front of a bus. But if that’s true, would it really be intrinsic?
And without direct feedback from this “external agent” it could very well be the other way around.
That’s true. Perhaps shoving old people under a bus is the modern equivalent of the Eskimos leaving their sickly people on ice floes, presumably as Polar Bear Chow.