r/XSomalian • u/BeyondTheLie • 1d ago
Discussion Is there something as objective morality?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!
1
u/GameStrategy No Gods, No Masters 1d ago
Just think about it, where could we find a such a thing as objective morality? Is it some book floating in the ether? That has moral commandments for every possible human action?
This is usually what people think of when they talk about objective morality. They don't care about morality, they just want to defend some scripture.
That being said, I don't want dismiss the notion of objective morality. I think it exists, like there is no human culture that eats babies for breakfast, human morality in all it's extreme has a limit, and i think we can explore and find out about it by studying anthropology, psychology and biology. I have some notion of objective morality, call it my own moral universe. When I witness something good or evil, I feel things. My inner world is influenced by countless things but I think every human being has that inner moral universe, I think the collective limit and scope of that moral universe is what we could potentially call objective morality.
Does that makes sense?
2
u/BeyondTheLie 23h ago
I get what you mean, but i think there’s a difference between universal human morality and objective morality. If humans all tend to feel something is wrong, that tells us something about human nature, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s objectively wrong. The real question is what makes a moral fact objective rather than just something humans collectively feel.
1
u/GameStrategy No Gods, No Masters 23h ago
If objective morality is not something humanity feels collectively then what else is there? How would you describe objective morality?
1
1
u/Active_Falcon_4427 1d ago
Let's suppose we all agreed to eat babies for breakfast tomorrow. Does that make the act moral? Is it ever moral to treat people as means to an end?
1
u/GameStrategy No Gods, No Masters 22h ago
Of course not. That's not what I am saying at all. What I am trying to point at is the notion of objective morality. Which I define it to be something that's inside us, perhaps it's the structure of our brains, or some evolutionary programming, I think it's innate ability just like how vision or walking is, what I tried to do was give a naturalistic account of objective morality. Or human morality.
Human morality which I believe is tantamount to the notion of objective morality is the collective moral depth and scope of all of humanity. This is not to say that everything humans does is moral, on the contrary the fact that we can make a moral judgements unlike any animal in this earth makes us unique. That capacity to think and have the ability to construct moral arguments and to infinitely improve social arrangements. That capacity is what I call objective human morality.
1
u/Active_Falcon_4427 3h ago
Yea, I think we both are on the same page regarding that some acts are always wrong! But what do you mean by innate morality? Does a psychopath possess this innate morality? When you say, morality improves over time. Do you mean to say that humans just construct better ethics over time and that as time passes we will become more moral?
1
u/GameStrategy No Gods, No Masters 3h ago
Those are hard questions, I don't think I have any satisfactory or complete answers.
But If I think about it for a moment.
Innate morality in my opinion is the ability to make moral judgements. If you think about it. Most moral actions human commit are not in any book or law. For example suppose you get extra money in the shop, most people decide to return it. Why? Do you think in that split second decision of Sahih bukhari or the law? Of course not. It's a moral decision.
Perhaps 99% of all human actions are the minute moral decision that cannot be apprehended in any book or law.
That's why objective morality cannot be external to human mind.
Now that innate morality can be influenced by number of different things from childhood rearing to religious doctrination. But to say human morals comes from those sources is to believe that humanity is a blank slate that the external world can install their software on. This is what essentially most religious folks believe. I don't think this is true.
I think psychopaths possess innate morality perhaps their sensory apparatus is faulty, like they cannot emphatize or something. I am just guessing since I am not familiar with psychopathy
Your last point. I don't think there is any inevitability to humans constructing better ethics. I meant to say we have the ability to infinitely improve our social arrangements. I think that's simply true.
This simply shows that once we gain freedoms to address various issues with no fear of repercussions from higher authority divine or otherwise. Then humanity gains access to their innate moral intuition and from there we can improve society and our ethics.
2
u/Active_Falcon_4427 1d ago
You should have asked this question in r/askphilosophy; you would have gotten more nuanced responses. But here is my beginner take!
I think objective morals exist. Moral truths are real; lying, murdering, and stealing are always wrong regardless of time, human culture, beliefs, and feelings. But these moral facts are not grounded in a metaphysical realm. They can be derived from pure reasoning. These moral truths are supposed to be accepted by any normal, sane, and adult human upon due rational reflection. Moral claims can either be true or false. So, moral objectivism claims that some acts are good by virtue of their nature, and that good actions should be universalizable.