NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally believe in one, though I tie no religion to it. That's partly because it is not a religious belief at all.
Anyhow, argue away!

I personally believe in one, though I tie no religion to it. That's partly because it is not a religious belief at all.
Anyhow, argue away!

Hmm. What's yours like? What do you base it on?

As an existentialist, I see no absolutes in morality.

I believe that morality is the pre-ordained will of God, so, yes, I do believe in objective morality. Of course, a Christian's idea of morality is quite different today than it was, say, 500 years ago. So, although I do believe in an objective morality, I also believe that our human ability to understand is so limited that everything is effectively gray and relative.

As an existentialist, I see no absolutes in morality.

Same here. I've tried to find a basis for morality and I haven't really found anything to back moral objectivism.

most issues are black and white, wrong or right. I believe in objective morality. It has to be objective because if you make it subjective it is too easy to rationalize just about anything, the grey area just gets bigger and bigger.

I do. Simply put, without objective 'right' and 'wrong' concepts, it's kind of impossible to point to $ACTION and say "that's wrong" or "that's right." In order to do so, one needs a moral benchmark absolute ] from which to reach that assessment.

I do. Simply put, without objective 'right' and 'wrong' concepts, it's kind of impossible to point to $ACTION and say "that's wrong" or "that's right." In order to do so, one needs a moral benchmark absolute ] from which to reach that assessment.
As I see it, those are established by the notion of efficiency in a complex society. All societies are problem-solving constructs, and killing a member of said society, for example, hinders the group effort. Therefore such conduct is frowned upon. You see this is wolf packs, for example, where fighting occurs, but killing, even in a power struggle, is relatively uncommon. I doubt wolves have much in the way of absolute morals.

As intelligent beings we now recognise the intrinsic value of human life. But it is an error to believe that to be the source of what appear to be universal conventions in complex societies, and which ultimately become negotiable.

I believe that morality is social construct meant to maintain order and to gurantee a certain form of behaviour.

I believe that morality is social construct meant to maintain order and to gurantee a certain form of behaviour.

Well said.

I personally believe in one, though I tie no religion to it. That's partly because it is not a religious belief at all.
Anyhow, argue away!
Yes I agree

I believe there is one, but it would be impossible to actually find it and tie it to our behavior. It would require perfect knowledge and perfect wisdom.

I believe that morality is social construct meant to maintain order and to gurantee a certain form of behaviour.

If you could kill a person with no possibility of society learning of it, would you do it?

There is one morality, and many interperetations and many more outright pretenders.

If you could kill a person with no possibility of society learning of it, would you do it?
It would depend on the scenario. It's all about incentives and consequences.

It would depend on the scenario. It's all about incentives and consequences.

Let's assume that there is absolutely no difference between killing a man and not killing him, it is just as convenient for you to kill him as it is to not kill him. There are no social ramifications. Do you kill him?

Let's assume that there is absolutely no difference between killing a man and not killing him, it is just as convenient for you to kill him as it is to not kill him. There are no social ramifications. Do you kill him?
No.

No.

Why not?

Why not?
Violation of property claims.

I believe that morality is social construct meant to maintain order and to gurantee a certain form of behaviour.

Agreed as well. I believe people follow these rules because it makes them feel good to do what they believe is the "right" thing to do.

If you could kill a person with no possibility of society learning of it, would you do it?

Although it wasn't directed at me specifically, I'll answer anyways. No. But only because I have no reason to, not because I judge it to be morally wrong.

Morality I think is based on doing harm (whether it be mentally or physically)
unless the destructiveness is overwelmed by constructivesness.

Violation of property claims.

What?

Although it wasn't directed at me specifically, I'll answer anyways. No. But only because I have no reason to, not because I judge it to be morally wrong.

You are walking through a desert and find a water fountain. You are extremely thirsty, not passing out and dying thirsty, but very uncomfortable. At the water fountain, though, is another man who is quenching his thirst. You walk up behind him and he is still drinking. Do you kill him so you don't have to wait?

What?
I believe in order to secure my property, I must assume that others wish for their property to be respected. I will respect theur claims and in turn, hopefully, they will respect mine. I will assume that you own your body. Person X has done nothing to me and his body is not my property, I have no reason to kill him.

You are walking through a desert and find a water fountain. You are extremely thirsty, not passing out and dying thirsty, but very uncomfortable. At the water fountain, though, is another man who is quenching his thirst. You walk up behind him and he is still drinking. Do you kill him so you don't have to wait?

Assuming that I somehow know that killing him would have no conceivable negative consequences, and his life would have no future positive consequences, to myself right? In that case, I would think him out of existence if possible.

I do, simply because if one doesn't than by default one must believe that any action is perfectly fine. So every person who believes in something like saaayyy, Cultural Relativism could not complain if I were to drop nukes off in random countries if they were to actually adhere to their twisted logic. Or rather they could, but they would have no basis for their complaints other than they don't like it.

Hmm. What's yours like? What do you base it on?
I have two basic rules I'd like everyone to live by.

1. Do not harm another human being, nor coerce him for any reason other than to protect another human beign from physical harm.
2. Do not become dependent on anything other than what is needed for survival. Interdependence on an entire society is fine, as it allows a person to choose rationally for his happiness. But dependence on any person or chemical makes you a tool, and not a free agent. It is the moral obligation of every human being to maintain a free state of mind.
Other than that, I have no rules. I care about very few things outside of my little construct.

but they would have no basis for their complaints other than they don't like it.

Or the fact that it is very likely to have a direct negative impact on their life.

How can morals be fully objective if they have changed so dramatically over time?

How can morals be fully objective if they have changed so dramatically over time?
Because the definition of morality has been very subjective, taking into account several situations, and being extremely broad. This works well for what I call personal morality, but is a disaster for public morality.

How can morals be fully objective if they have changed so dramatically over time?
Most people don't have a thought out morality and in fact most religions tend to be extremely bastardized versions of the golden rule. If in fact, as they were growing up people were forced to truly consider their own morality the world might be a much different place.

I believe in order to secure my property, I must assume that others wish for their property to be respected. I will respect theur claims and in turn, hopefully, they will respect mine. I will assume that you own your body. Person X has done nothing to me and his body is not my property, I have no reason to kill him.

It seems that you may be implying a classical liberal claim. It's strange though that you are going through violation of property rights instead of the good ol' simple right to life.

I mean that's the central tenet of the ideology, that each person is his own master.

Murder applies to life more directly than property. And the right to property itself is a bit dubious (at least that is what I would argue).

There is no wrong or right. Something can be desirable or undesirable, but the idea of absolute morality is completely baseless -unless you're a theist. If you're an atheist, however, you have to realize that morality is not something absolute like the speed of light or the freezing point of water.

Morality, on the other hand, is based on our desires. No ordinary person would ever want to kill someone else -even if they could get away with it and suffer no consequences- because ordinary people are appauled by the thought of killing someone else. The same goes for rape, large-scale theft, torture, etc.

I do, simply because if one doesn't than by default one must believe that any action is perfectly fine. So every person who believes in something like saaayyy, Cultural Relativism could not complain if I were to drop nukes off in random countries if they were to actually adhere to their twisted logic. Or rather they could, but they would have no basis for their complaints other than they don't like it.
You seem to misunderstand what cultural relativism is. It is simply a methodological principle. Perhaps you are confusing cultural relativism with moral relativism or with relativism as a moral principle?

I do, simply because if one doesn't than by default one must believe that any action is perfectly fine. So every person who believes in something like saaayyy, Cultural Relativism could not complain if I were to drop nukes off in random countries if they were to actually adhere to their twisted logic. Or rather they could, but they would have no basis for their complaints other than they don't like it.

If you nuked random countries the world economy and environment would go insane. Millions of people would lose their friends, relatives, and/or homes. I think that would be a decent basis for complaints. You don't have to bring Right and Wrong into the picture.

Morality, on the other hand, is based on our desires. No ordinary person would ever want to kill someone else -even if they could get away with it and suffer no consequences- because ordinary people are appauled by the thought of killing someone else. The same goes for rape, large-scale theft, torture, etc.
I disagree. Every human can think just like you and me, and every human has the potential to be productive. That in itself is far more important than desire, both for them and for me.
Morality, to some extent, is based on desire. The Golden Rule is recipricol. So is mine, but in a different way.

Murder applies to life more directly than property. And the right to property itself is a bit dubious (at least that is what I would argue).
I see such things in terms of property claims, which you have ownership of your body. I don't believe in objective rights.

Objective morality, much like objective reality, is irrelevant. Both are subjectively interpreted and it is the interpretations that people operate on.

morality is both objective and subjective.
it is subjective because it can only exist in the confines of human existence. with out humans, there wuld be no morality. everthing would just BE.
but it is objective but only because humans exist and for humans does it exist. animals have instinctual morality, they know something is right or wrong because biology tells them it is. for example when certain animals take care of their wounded, it is because that is part of their biology and what makes them that species. humans on the other hand have a tendency to overthink morality, our morality is intellectual and instinctive, a beautiful and sometimes ugly mixture of both.
morality can be called objective because of one rule. if what a human is doing is causing the suffering of another sentient being it is wrong. the ability of another being ot suffer should be enough for us to keep ourselves from causing it pain.

Objective morality? No. I don't believe in objective anything.

Or the fact that it is very likely to have a direct negative impact on their life.
Ah, but that is the beginnings of an objective morality. The idea that one owns oneself. If they are not just paying lip service to cultural relativism, they could not use that argument.

You seem to misunderstand what cultural relativism is. It is simply a methodological principle. Perhaps you are confusing cultural relativism with moral relativism or with relativism as a moral principle?
Unless you're a sociologist, all three boil down to the same thing.

I would say morality is based on free will, in that, you should be entitled to free will without fear of it being superseded by the free will of another. In otherwords, it is morally wrong to use your own free will to violate the free will of another. And once you use your free will in such a way, you are declaring that you do not mind having your own free will taken away in turn.

Unless you're a sociologist, all three boil down to the same thing.
Untrue, I know this because I am not a socialogist and yet can tell cultural relativism from moral relativism.

If you can tell them apart is there some reason why you would post such misleading comments? :confused:

If you cant tell them apart, it does not necessarily follow that everyone else is stuck in the same boat as yourself.

Ah, but that is the beginnings of an objective morality. The idea that one owns oneself. If they are not just paying lip service to cultural relativism, they could not use that argument.

I am not suggesting that one "owns" oneself. I don't need to believe that murder is wrong to not want to be murdered. Objecting to the proposed situation would simply be guarding ones own self interest; morality does not need to come into play.

I'm still trying to find an effective answer to the ideas of Nietzsche. I don't want to agree with him, but I can't seem to find a clearcut refutation of the will to power, or his support of élitism, etc.

I believe morality is subjective, but appears objective

the reasons for this is...

1) Let's assume there is no god. There may well be a god, but unless he comes down, pats me on the shoulder, and says "This is the moral thing to do" I don't know how we can act on his objective morality (although we might be able to discover the objective morality through other means) - the bible/ten commandments etc. don't count, as other religions have different, conflicting moral rules (and the christian rules have changed over time).

2) Some cultures find things perfectly acceptable which other cultures abhor, this seems to be based mostly on cultural influences and education, not the individual morality. Murder has been used a few times in this discussion as a "objectively moral" bad thing. There are cultures that see "murder"/fighting/battle as the height of morality. Heck, even these days we see killing other people as the height of morality in certain situations.
The fact that these people don't feel a nagging guilt shows that the morality isn't "built in" to them. (ah, but some do. let's get back to this later)

3) there can ALWAYS be extenuating circumstances. Murder is wrong. What if God says "hey, sacrifice your son to me". Lying is wrong, what if a known murderer walks into your house, says "I'm going to kill your mother, where is she?" - do we now take this objective morality and say "well, some actions are, objectively, worse than others. So it's the morally good thing to do the lesser of the two evils"? I suppose that could be an objective rule...but...it's starting to get away from us

4) If we can have this discussion between intelligent individuals, and we aren't sure if there is objective or relative morality, that implies that objective morality is not clearly visible. If you don't *know* the moral thing to do, is it immoral if you don't follow it? If it's not immoral to do something other than the moral thing, then what does "objective morality" mean?
If it IS immoral to do something other than the moral thing, then I can't morally do ANYTHING, such as rescue a kitten from a tree, without full knowledge. I could be doing the immoral thing (since kittens kill other animals) if I rescue it. Or be doing the immoral thing (since killing is wrong) if I kill it, or doing the immoral thing (since it's crueler to let it starve) if I leave it. Or doing the immoral thing if I let someone else make the moral choice for me, giving them my burden. If I can't KNOW what the moral thing is, I can't DO the moral thing. It's hardly "morality" if I'm not making a moral choice, now is it? Therefore, doing what I think is right must be the moral choice in this situation. Therefore, the morality in this situation must be relative.

---

As to why morality appears to be objective, I believe that is because morality is based, somewhat, on our desires and biology. We have evolved to be agressive, combative animals, and as such have a certain amount of blood lust, and enjoyment from violence (if you don't agree with this, tell me why violent video games are so popular?). We are also social animals, and have evolved to work in groups. We have certain instincts, like child-bearing desires.
As such, when we build our morality on things that are "natural" to us, "killing bad guys is good" "being nice to your friends is good" "hurting babies is bad" we are basing those on aspects natural to us. As such, we're likely to all create similar relative morality when it comes to these instincts and inclinations. Cultures worldwide think hurting babies is bad.

There can be some confusion between conflicting desires. killing bad guys was pretty much accepted as good for most of history, where there wasn't much choice. We also don't want to be hurt or killed, and so that makes us inclined to say "killing is bad" - our empathy is projecting how we want to be treated upon others. This is a luxury we have in the modern world, where we have other options, such as locking up bad guys. This causes conflict and disagreements.

So, my conclusion is that morality is relative, but the relative morality is built, partly, from desires and instincts, as well as from the society that needs morality to function smoothly. As such, certain aspects of relative morality seem to be fairly self-creating, and appear objective.

Feel free to pull this apart, I know you will :)
Feel free to include God in the discussion, but before I will accept God as part of the morality debate, I need to have either an explanation of why an unknowable morality is useful (see the kitten example above), or else a way of knowing which religion's morality is correct.

I'm still trying to find an effective answer to the ideas of Nietzsche. I don't want to agree with him, but I can't seem to find a clearcut refutation of the will to power, or his support of élitism, etc.

I don't know Nietzsche well enough to debate intelligently on it (unless you want to outline the ideas), but I think the argument against him is that an untempered will to power results in a breakdown of some social order, which results in less power/benefit for the group as a whole, and since everyone has a will to power, everyone suffers for it, and you get less power in total.
So the best way to use your will to power is to not excercise it to the detriment of others.

Of course, that assumes you can't wrangle a situation where you excercise your will to power, and everyone else follows their other morality, where you can benefit by standing on their backs.

As as I said, I don't know Nietzche's arguments well enough, hopefully I'm not completely off-track.

Have I scared people away from this thread, or are my arguments just so obviously correct that nobody needs debate further?

Or, more likely, I just write too much, nobody can be bothered reading it all, and so they don't post?

Have I scared people away from this thread, or are my arguments just so obviously correct that nobody needs debate further?

Or, more likely, I just write too much, nobody can be bothered reading it all, and so they don't post?
Probably not; truth be told I could probably strap on the 'ol haz-mat suit and give it a go, but I decided to sit this one out some time ago.

Have I scared people away from this thread, or are my arguments just so obviously correct that nobody needs debate further?

Or, more likely, I just write too much, nobody can be bothered reading it all, and so they don't post?


I would have a go, but it is too late at night for me to read through 4 pages of posts to get caught up. Also, your posts are too long for me to give them their due attention on an issue which I mostly agree with you on. It is easier to go talk about acorns.

Probably not; truth be told I could probably strap on the 'ol haz-mat suit and give it a go, but I decided to sit this one out some time ago.

Part of the reason I posted to this was that, despite the different beliefs, everyone seems relatively polite. No need for a haz-mat suit.

Speaking of haz-mat suits though, have you seen Dance Dance Immolation?
Now *there's* a flame game. =)

It is easier to go talk about acorns.

Ironic that I was talking to someone about acorns not five minutes ago.

Who Believes in Objective Morality?
I have no idea what it means, so I can't believe in it.

Part of the reason I posted to this was that, despite the different beliefs, everyone seems relatively polite. No need for a haz-mat suit.

Speaking of haz-mat suits though, have you seen Dance Dance Immolation?
Now *there's* a flame game. =)
Well, the hazmat suit I described isn't the flame retardant moderator variety, but the one that I need to deploy to absorb the various [philosophical]swipes and jabs of traditional debate. It sees quite a bit of use, as I tend to get in there real in-depth like. I once quoted an enitre chapter of P.J. O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores at an opponent to prove a point about how to cite a source.

And I don't even use sources, generally. I'm not one to debate statistics and such, because I generally don't trust them even when they're on my side.

Well, the hazmat suit I described isn't the flame retardant moderator variety, but the one that I need to deploy to absorb the various [philosophical]swipes and jabs of traditional debate. It sees quite a bit of use, as I tend to get in there real in-depth like. I once quoted an enitre chapter of P.J. O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores at an opponent to prove a point about how to cite a source.

And I don't even use sources, generally. I'm not one to debate statistics and such, because I generally don't trust them even when they're on my side.

Ah, I see. I'm a philosophical debatist masochist, I love to have my opinions challenged and railed against. As long as the opposition comes from a strong argument, I love nothing more.

Ah, I see. I'm a philosophical debatist masochist, I love to have my opinions challenged and railed against. As long as the opposition comes from a strong argument, I love nothing more.
Oh God. We're in for some interesting times then, probably.

I don't believe in objective morality, simply because it implies that morality is more than a social construct, and that it is, instead, an absolute. Thus I distinguish between morality (which I see as a code of values constructed by society, some of which I agree with and some not) and ethics (which is the word I use to refer to a person's own code of right and wrong). I follow my sense of ethics (which, of course, are partly inspired by morality).

I have no idea what it means, so I can't believe in it.

Objective morality means that, whether we know what it is or not, there is certain RIGHT and WRONG things. For example, an objective moralist might say "killing people is wrong" and think that it's always wrong. The vikings who killed in battle? They were wrong. Even if their culture said that it's right to kill in battle.
An example of an objective moralist might be a christian, who believes that what God tells us to do is RIGHT and if we disobey that, we're being morally WRONG.

A relative moralist believes that everyone can make their own moral code, and that what is RIGHT or WRONG changes depending on the person and society, or on other factors. It might have been morally right for the vikings to kill in battle, because they were doing that to feed their families, but in the modern day it's wrong for us to kill, because we can feed our families without causing harm. They believe that there is no set right or wrong in the world, but there is still right or wrong depending on your beliefs, your situations, and your society. This right or wrong may change as time goes by.

I know I explained that terribly, but hopefully it clears up the discussion a little :)

I don't believe in objective morality, simply because it implies that morality is more than a social construct, and that it is, instead, an absolute. Thus I distinguish between morality (which I see as a code of values constructed by society, some of which I agree with and some not) and ethics (which is the word I use to refer to a person's own code of right and wrong). I follow my sense of ethics (which, of course, are partly inspired by morality).

So you seperate morality into what society expects us to do, and ethis as what you expect yourself to do?

To your mind it's morally wrong to download mp3's, or jaywalk? But ethically alright?

would you say it's morally wrong to walk around naked?

In fairness, Rand's brand of moral objectivism accounts for context. It doesn't so much contend that morals themselves are 'absolute' in the sense that the Ten Commandments are. The focus is predominantly placed on the [i]values which lead to those decisions.

Objective morality means that, whether we know what it is or not, there is certain RIGHT and WRONG things. For example, an objective moralist might say "killing people is wrong" and think that it's always wrong. The vikings who killed in battle? They were wrong. Even if their culture said that it's right to kill in battle.
An example of an objective moralist might be a christian, who believes that what God tells us to do is RIGHT and if we disobey that, we're being morally WRONG.

A relative moralist believes that everyone can make their own moral code, and that what is RIGHT or WRONG changes depending on the person and society, or on other factors. It might have been morally right for the vikings to kill in battle, because they were doing that to feed their families, but in the modern day it's wrong for us to kill, because we can feed our families without causing harm. They believe that there is no set right or wrong in the world, but there is still right or wrong depending on your beliefs, your situations, and your society. This right or wrong may change as time goes by.

I know I explained that terribly, but hopefully it clears up the discussion a little :)
And I still don't know what it means. (No offense.)

You've not said anything that could distinguish "objective" morality from a moral opinion. Opinions are always subjective, to either a person or a group.

And I still don't know what it means. (No offense.)

You've not said anything that could distinguish "objective" morality from a moral opinion. Opinions are always subjective, to either a person or a group.
Ummm... Objective morality [or lack thereof] deals with whether or not moral truth even exists.

So you seperate morality into what society expects us to do, and ethis as what you expect yourself to do?


Essentially, yes.


would you say it's morally wrong to walk around naked?

An interesting question, since the answer depends on perspective. It's morally wrong in the sense that society says it is. I don't see it as ethically wrong. I don't walk around naked because a) I don't want to be arrested, b) I don't want to be cold and c) I'd feel embarassed at being the only person walking around with no clothes on. ;) But ethics aren't the reason. To me, something can only be ethically wrong if it's harmful to others.

Ummm... Objective morality [or lack thereof] deals with whether or not moral truth even exists.
So, the discussion of moral objectivity is the discussion of "are things truly right and wrong"? Yes, they are, in my opinion. It would appear I believe in moral objectivity, then.

Nope.

Humans invented morality. Right and wrong are relative. If I lie to protect a child's emotions, am I commiting a sin? Is it morally wrong?

Obvious really.

If there is no such thing as objective morality, then explain the following:

1. Serial killers hide their crimes because they know that it's wrong, and they don't want to get caught. Even if they think it's a good thing, they still know it's wrong and hide it.
2. Serial killers commit their crimes as a result of psychological compulsion.
3. No serial killer in history has ever felt compelled to commit their crimes in front of a police station.

There seems to be common knowledge, and acceptance, of certain minimums and maximums of behavior. Not just by law, but by convention. Even people who we deem to be crazy and sadistic follow the conventions.

1. Serial killers hide their crimes because they know that it's wrong, and they don't want to get caught. Even if they think it's a good thing, they still know it's wrong and hide it.
Murder is illegal. They don't want to be caught.

2. Serial killers commit their crimes as a result of psychological compulsion.
Which skews their sense of morality...

3. No serial killer in history has ever felt compelled to commit their crimes in front of a police station.
See point one.

Murder is illegal. They don't want to be caught.


Which skews their sense of morality...


See point one.

My point is that they know it's wrong. They like doing things that are wrong. And they know it.

They know it's illegal, certainly... Then again, so is buggery in Texas.

My point is that they know it's wrong. They like doing things that are wrong. And they know it.
They also don't want to go to jail, and they know it.

Your example is insufficient.

The only way to determine if something is objectively moral (the way I understand it, now) is to ask yourself, "Is that wrong?" If the answer is "yes", then ask yourself why?

Why is it that killing is wrong? What is your reason? If you strip away society and isolate yourself from others, is it still wrong? If you (hypothetically) strip away your learning and your knowledge of the world, is it still wrong? If you believe it remains "wrong" dispite all else, then there is moral objectivity.

They also don't want to go to jail, and they know it.

Your example is insufficient.

The only way to determine if something is objectively moral (the way I understand it, now) is to ask yourself, "Is that wrong?" If the answer is "yes", then ask yourself why?

Why is it that killing is wrong? What is your reason? If you strip away society and isolate yourself from others, is it still wrong? If you (hypothetically) strip away your learning and your knowledge of the world, is it still wrong? If you believe it remains "wrong" dispite all else, then there is moral objectivity.

I'm sure that people on the receiving end of fatal gunshots think it's wrong.

So maybe this is a potential objective morality:

"I believe it's wrong for someone to kill me without my permission."

I'm sure that people on the receiving end of fatal gunshots think it's wrong.
It is wrong. It is wrong for them to have to lose their lives.

If there is no such thing as objective morality, then explain the following:

1. Serial killers hide their crimes because they know that it's wrong, and they don't want to get caught. Even if they think it's a good thing, they still know it's wrong and hide it.
2. Serial killers commit their crimes as a result of psychological compulsion.
3. No serial killer in history has ever felt compelled to commit their crimes in front of a police station.

There seems to be common knowledge, and acceptance, of certain minimums and maximums of behavior. Not just by law, but by convention. Even people who we deem to be crazy and sadistic follow the conventions.

That's not objective morality. That's conventional morality. If you're looking for objective morality, you're looking for absolutes, not for social conventions. Social conventions are the epitomy of subjectivity.

To put it another way, homosexuality used to be illegal. Homosexuals thus hid their sexual activities. Not because they knew it was "objectively wrong", quite the contrary: because they knew they would go to jail if found, because of subjective social morality.

That's not objective morality. That's conventional morality. If you're looking for objective morality, you're looking for absolutes, not for social conventions. Social conventions are the epitomy of subjectivity.
Aye; well, not epitomy, but the consensus of opinion is still opinion, and it is still subjective, to the group to which it applies.

I believe that morality is the pre-ordained will of God, so, yes, I do believe in objective morality. Of course, a Christian's idea of morality is quite different today than it was, say, 500 years ago. So, although I do believe in an objective morality, I also believe that our human ability to understand is so limited that everything is effectively gray and relative.

I found a sealed metal container which houses a stone tablet that has inscribed upon it the meaning of life and a clear explanation of how to follow the unalloyed will of God, to the letter. Unfortunatly, the tablet will, if exposed to sunlight, moonlight, starlight, artificial light, or air, disintegrate into vapors. I live my life exactly as instructed by the words on that tablet.

If there is no such thing as objective morality, then explain the following:

1. Serial killers hide their crimes because they know that it's wrong, and they don't want to get caught. Even if they think it's a good thing, they still know it's wrong and hide it.

Closet homosexuals hide their behavior because they fear that they'll get punished for it, but they do not necessarily believe that it is wrong. A tribal New Guinea highlander may hate homosexual behavior, but will consent to it to be accepted in his tribe, which requires it. An awareness that a society condemns a behavior does not mean that it is wrong. If a society agrees in sufficient numbers that a behavior is wrong then they will forbid it, but that is nothing more than subjective morality out loud.



2. Serial killers commit their crimes as a result of psychological compulsion.
3. No serial killer in history has ever felt compelled to commit their crimes in front of a police station.

That's not morality. It has nothing to do with morality. It's just tactics. He feels compelled to do something, if he does it in front of a police station then he won't get to do it. You say [3] as though it would be a perfectly natural part of a compulsion. My wife feels compelled to clean when she is anxious. She never feels compelled to do so at the police station.


There seems to be common knowledge, and acceptance, of certain minimums and maximums of behavior. Not just by law, but by convention. Even people who we deem to be crazy and sadistic follow the conventions.

Common knowledge is not morality. We may have rules against j-walking. It may be common knowledge that getting hit by a speeding car hurts. That doesn't mean that walking across a street while not at a corner is objectivly wrong. The wrongness of it consists of the danger you pose to drivers who may swerve to avoid hitting you and other things like that.

Your objective morality example about the serial killer also fails because of what being a serial killer entails. The actions of a serial killer are to kill a number of people in a ritualized fashion. If you just do it any ole' way then you're a mass murderer. Usually "in violation of law" is part of the definition, but since involving the law in it makes it necessarily subjective it will have to be left out. The actions of a serial killer are also those of an executioner and the functionaries of any number of religions, including Catholocism and Puritainism. If it was objectivly wrong to kill people in a ritualized fashion, then we wouldn't have laws requiring it to happen sometimes, or at least we'd have some way to demonstrate the immorality of executions and human sacrifice to the peoples who perform them.

"Who Believes in Objective Morality?"

I don't know about "objective" morality, but I sure have been known to "object" to morality! :D

Well, as far as I can see, morality consists of being good to others, combined with disapproving of anything different (obviously the latter often contradicts the former). All that varies is how good people think they should be to others and what differences them condemn.