Thread: Objective morality: Is it possible and why should/shouldn't we use it?

I have been thinking a lot lately about this topic, I think it must be one of the most hotly debated systems of belief that you could find.
The question I put to you is: Could us humans employ a universal set of moral codes and conduct? Why should or shouldn't we do this? What would the effects of this be? In breaking down the question further I'm talking about the differences between the way nations/countries/regions and ethnic groups view morality.
In Islamic countries there is a strong set of rules and wishes for the women of the community to wear the burka. If some of them don't wish to however do other nations have the right to make a stand and support such people and try to campaign against a countries belief system?
Then we can always look at the way China has dealt with Tibet, is it right to interfere or not?
Is an objective sense of morality possible between all nations or are we really just caught in conflict between our belief system and somebody else's?

-Disclaimer: In no way do I or have I intended to cause offense to anybody from any background or belief system, the examples I used are only just that examples and nothing more and in no way am I condoning or criticizing any group of people.

i believe that there's no objective morality, that it's essentially a social construct. what is right or wrong is simply an artefact of time and place, cultural norms, personal upbringing and sometimes purely arbitrary.

- in ancient greece, paedophilia was acceptable, today it isn't
- male circumcision is acceptable but female circumcision isn't
- in india, cows are sacred yet in western cultures we readily kill them. why are we offended when people of other cultures eat dogs?
- slavery was once acceptable, now it isn't
- eskimos practise infanticide if there are few resources or the mother cannot look after its offspring.
- the united states is one of the few countries to execute children, alongside iran and i believe yemen or somalia.

all i see is cultural norms.

however, this worldview does mess me up in the head because by believing that no objective morality exists, then what right do i have to project my moral assumptions upon others? i find apartheid, homophobia, paedophilia all abhorrent. i believe that lying should be a crime, but it's legal albeit frowned upon. but this is because i was born in a western country with a libertarian environment and exposed to various ideas and experiences based upon my schooling, family environment and culture.

Is an objective sense of morality possible between all nations or are we really just caught in conflict between our belief system and somebody else's?

perhaps international law, as agreed upon by the UN reflects "objective morality codified"? regardless, there are multiple instances where the value system of the majority is completely illegitimate and shouldn't form the basis of objective truth.

so in answer to your question: the bloodthirstiest tribe with the most powerful army determines what's right and wrong

excuse me now while i microwave a kitten.

Ahaha! Good answer. I very much agree with the section about cultural norms and that's exactly the dilemma isn't it. It seems to be that too many people are ready to impose their view points against others when they don't understand a culture or community.
My own belief system fall largely upon the fact that I believe everybody should have the choice to be free, I think people should be allowed to believe what they wish and I believe that anything that endangers humans lives needlessly and wantonly is also wrong. I believe that in some ways objective morality would be possible and a very helpful thing for humanity at large. In cases were children are abused/killed/raped I think that other countries and groups have the right to condone and criticize the actions of the people responsible regardless or social norms or beliefs. I say this because I believe in free will and I believe children being incredibly vulnerable due to their inexperience and dependance should have the right to be raised with out become emotionally or physically wounded by an upbringing. I would apply this to other subjects and areas as well. Something to think about is problem of ignoring issues because of our fear of interfering with the belief systems of others- I would thin that sometimes our inaction causes more damage than our actions. This is all only my opinion though.

I was listening to a swami's speech and he told me a story that went something like this:

One judge gets a complaint from the plaintiff and listens to his story. He listens to it, accepts his assumptions, and agrees with his conclusions. The judge then goes to the defendant and listens to his side of the story, accepts his side of events and his assumptions, and his conclusions. He rules in favor of the defendant. The plantiff comes back to the judge, and concludes he is a hypocrite, assuming he would act in his favor after the judge agreed with his conclusions. The judge agrees.

Maybe unifying morality into an "objective" asymptotic truth is not possible...but, considering how happy woman are in our country to show their faces as well as how much of a problem it creates with the fat and uglies, it may seem more correct than you think, and any "judge" would have to think about that.

You've just found ethics.
A system of law where no one can be hurt emotionally/physically/mentally/whatever-ly.
However, if one person's happiness, to what extent are humans allowed to be happy?
You can't please everyone, and everyone wants different things.

Originally Posted by chtcnt

excuse me now while i microwave a kitten.

What's the difference between this and a chicken? As long as you are hungry, I, ethically, have nothing against it. If it's feral, cook it thoroughly. Only if you find it ethical.

Originally Posted by chtcnt

...lying...it's legal albeit frowned upon.

Credit card fraud is lying. And doing so to a cop or judge... But, for the most part it is just frowned upon. If it were illegal, as a whole, what would that accomplish? Rules do not make one able. Ordinances do not make one conscientious. Laws do not make one ethical.

Originally Posted by PurplePanther

You've just found ethics.
A system of law...

It is a system of personal choice. And, it can be based on hurting people.

From what I understand, the only objective morality has no code. In fact it's just that - objective - to achieve an objective. What one chooses as good or bad is determined on the spot. Though, being of a Good or Evil nature will incline one to prefer certain choices.

Originally Posted by PurplePanther

You've just found ethics.
A system of law where no one can be hurt emotionally/physically/mentally/whatever-ly.
However, if one person's happiness, to what extent are humans allowed to be happy?
You can't please everyone, and everyone wants different things.

Yes I'm talking about ethics, and in breaking that down more about good and evil as well as virtues and vices. However I'm not talking about a utopia here. In no way did I imply that there should be a system in which nobody suffers. I'm talking about the moral code of the world and asking if you think an objective moral code is possible or not and if it should be used. Psychologically and behaviourally humans have always had some shared moral traits over time no? I would argue that in a large percent of cultures murder is deemed to be wrong and also most forms of child abuse. So there for as humans we do think in similar patterns, we seem to realize and understand that taking a life is a very big thing. This brings and is what led me to the question of objective morality.
Happiness is a relative term to me it means x and to you it means y. In my definition humans should be able to experience what ever feelings or state of mind they wish, in that I mean that I don't believe people should be told what they can or can't feel or experience provided these things aren't those like murder, rape, child abuse as they destroy the happiness of others in an extreme way.

Originally Posted by Insidious9

In my definition humans should be able to experience what ever feelings or state of mind they wish, in that I mean that I don't believe people should be told what they can or can't feel or experience provided these things aren't those like murder, rape, child abuse as they destroy the happiness of others in an extreme way.

Once again, the happiness procured to the most people seems to be what you're striving for in a sense.

The problem is, all humans are part of one culture or another. On what culture do we base our objective moral code? All living animals may be eaten, as to not offend any cultures?

Originally Posted by PurplePanther

Once again, the happiness procured to the most people seems to be what you're striving for in a sense.

The problem is, all humans are part of one culture or another. On what culture do we base our objective moral code? All living animals may be eaten, as to not offend any cultures?

I see what you're getting at here. I believe that such a moral code should exclude cultural differences that do not affect the well being of humans in an adverse way. Choices about things like the consumption of animal meat should be made by that country as it is not something which affects humans in an adverse way. That being it doesn't cause us as much physical, emotional and psychological harm as other things would. If a culture was to believe that pedophilia or rape were okay should the rest of the world condone that? In action sometimes causes more adverse affects than action. In older times the Spartans believed in pedophilia why should they have the right to emotionally and psychologically damage young children? What do you think happened to those who didn't want to live a spartan life in those times? Why should people be allowed to get away with that? Objective morality is more concerned with free will and human rights imo. Even though loose forms of these things exist, such as the Geneva convention I would argue they are largely ineffective. If used correctly I believe the only people who would be left un-happy from objective morality would be those who wished to harm others-murderers, rapist, child abusers, political groups or leaders who condone and allow the persecution of certain religions etc. Quite frankly who cares if those kinds of people are left un-happy, they cause more harm then good.