No, of course not. But the OP isn’t looking for a basis for disregarding arguments that objective moral principles exist; they’re looking for a refutation of the argument that, because objective moral principles aren’t tangible, empirically observable objects, they don’t exist.
And that argument is trivially easy to refute. It’s unevidenced. In a sense, it refutes itself; it rests on a premise which is itself not empirically observable or demonstrable.
Thank you. I see what you mean. I think maybe it’s easy (for a layperson like me) to conflate or blur the boundaries between terms or concepts such as empirical, objective and maybe also absolute.
Welcome to the SDMB!
No, a deity has not. Look at any religion and you will find their morality changes over time. That is not an “absolute.” Heck, often they differ among others who profess the same religion to the point of willing to kill each other over who is “right.” E.g. Catholic and protestants, Sunni and Shia Muslims, etc. Not to mention the rift between Muslims, Christians and Jews which all share the same god.
OK
Objective: We can(or could) figure it out dispassionately, using some sort of process. The process may or may not include measuring something.
Empirical: It exists in a way that can be measured.
Absolute: It’s the same everywhere.
Systems of objective morality/ethics could be derived for humans. I think it’s probably fair to say this has in fact been done. The result might be dependent on the process, even for different groups of humans at different times under different conditions.
What is that to me?
You say the only question left is “to believe or not to believe”. I’m asking: even if I were to hypothetically grant, for the sake of argument, that a deity set, uh, ‘foundations of absolutes’, then — what?
If some wild-eyed guy in baggy sweatpants tells me it’s my objective moral duty to say the word “refrigerator” at least once every day, and he patiently explains that he’s set the foundations of absolutes or whatever, I’m going to (a) believe he’s there, and I’m going to (b) shrug, and keep on going about my business.
What changes if we swap in a deity?
I don’t understand how objective morality can be different for different humans at different times under different conditions. I thought the OP was defining objective morality as the kind of morality that doesn’t change, like some set of moral axioms that would apply and can be derived through scientific inquiry.
I know that deriving axioms doesn’t make sense, which is why I disagree with the OP for multiple reasons – I don’t think there’s an objective morality and I don’t think that the reason it doesn’t exist has anything to do with whether it can be measured scientifically.
Care to name a few, as laid out in whatever deity you have in mind?
I love history. I love reading about the thoughts and opinions of people from an entirely different time and place as myself formed from a completely different set of prejudices, vices and desires. Sometimes I will read about a person that seems genuinely nice maybe someone I’d very much like to sit down and have a beer with.
Compassion and humor are not only timeless, it has no territorial range and the most blinding of all aspects, culture, may not even affect it. I can think of no greater ‘proof’ of objective morality than there is something good in some people and that all intelligence creatures can agree on it and hold that person in high regard whether it be beast or man.
But I don’t think differences such as these, by themselves, are evidence either against or for the existence of objective morality.
If you think that the fact that we no longer accept these things represents moral progress—if you think that the way we view them now is better or more “right” or closer to some ideal—then you believe in objective moral standards.
But you might just prefer the modern views because they’re the ones of your own society, that you grew up internalizing—or out of just sheer personal preference—which wouldn’t entail the existence of any objective moral standards.
As mentioned by others, there are few, if any, moral absolutes that can be applied to all human cultures at all times. Cheating, stealing, murder, torture, slavery, and even rape (e.g. Barbarian tribes pillaging and raping their conquests) can all be morally justified by some cultures at some points in time, even though we (hopefully) find those things repugnant.
Loosely defined, torturing your offspring can be justified by some (e.g. I beat my child to make him a better person).
Loosely defined, murdering your offspring can also be justified by others (e.g. if I didn’t kill some of my children, we would all starve).
But, torturing your offspring with the intent to kill is one act that I don’t believe any culture at any time could morally justify. In fact, I don’t believe any intelligent species in the universe would justify it. It simply wouldn’t be something evolution would select.
That is exactly the problem with this thread.
Objective morality derived by humans on Earth, following a dispassionate and logical process may be different from objective morality derived following a logical process by the ant-dolphin-lion-crayfish beings Of Kepler 425b.
Absolute morality, if such a thing exists, would be the same everywhere and for everyone.
This is the problem for both religious people talking about morality and the non-religious people they are debating with. Conflation and muddling of the terms and concepts of objective, empirical and absolute. I’m guilty of this myself, in this very thread.
"If we did not torture and kill one from each brood of offpring, in the direct presence of the others from the same brood, the necessary pheremonal and audiovisual triggers would not be given to the other eleven offspring, and they would not develop something equivalent of what you call ‘reflexes’ or perhaps ‘instinct’ - and thus would be very unlikely to integrate successfully into the harsh environment of our world.
When we first made contact with your species here on Earth, two twelves of your centuries ago, spokespeople from within your tribes were shocked and offended to learn this fact of our biology, indeed several of what you might call ‘philosophers’ or perhaps ‘politicians’ from our culture urged what you would call our ‘government’ to adopt the moral stance of the human species on this matter.
It was attempted. Many twelves of millions died."
I like your distinctions. In my experience, many call absolute morality objective morality, possibly because absolute sounds harsh and objective sounds rational. Objective moralities can be derived, but the underlying assumptions are often hidden, to make them sound more absolute than they actually are.
And the real problem is when you get into the weeds. Cheating your neighbors is bad, but cheating that sucker from out of town might not be considered bad. A complete set of objective morals is either impossible to derive or impractical to implement.
Interesting choice of dates…
(One might note that the deity suggested by said date is claimed to have “set the foundations of absolutes” more than 2,000 years ago.)
Maybe this is a different deity that just didn’t have such a good PR department
True, a single set of stone tablets isn’t exactly the best way to advertise.
Just a thought on Euthyphro.
If it is moral because a god wills it. Then morality is the subjective opinion of that god.
If a god wills it because it is moral. Then morality is objective since it exists on it’s own.
One could argue that a god willed morality is objective as far as humanity is concerned. But then one would need to explain how a humanity derived morality is not objective as far as individual humans are concerned without special pleading.
IMHO, the real issue of objective morality is how defines objective.
If there is something so foundational and absolutely essential to the development of a sentient species, some factor of behaviour that is so mandatory and necessary, then I wonder if it would really qualify as ‘morality’.
If it’s that fundamental, surely it’s just biology, not morality.
Since some animals display a desire for fairness, you’re probably right.
But that gets me wondering: let’s say that, for the sake of argument, something — say, a desire for fairness — turns out to in fact be “foundational and absolutely essential to the development of a sentient species” provided enough people have enough of it.
What follows?
If we find a society where a minority — or a majority — of that society is unfairly oppressed, and we watch as that society keeps motoring along, then: what? If we say they sure do seem sentient, and, oh, hey, looks like some of them are born into slavery or whatever but some of them are born into owning a lot of property, accident of birth, whadayagonnado, we don’t do that but they do, then: what do we conclude, if that unfair society keeps on keeping on, year after year?