Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I assume that we are agreed that logical arguments and evidence gathered through scientific inquiry are our most dependable means of understanding the world.

Yes. But 'logical arguments' and 'evidence gathered through scientific inquiry' are two different things.

If we are attempting to see if there is such a think as objective morality (and then if there is, what its nature is) then we must also use these same methods.

Agreed up to a point. I can't see how we can set up 'morality experiments' to test our these and antitheses in the way that most scientific enquiry is performed. As I see it, you will be engaging in more of a mental exercise, where, starting from mutually agreed lemmas, you intend to show that objective morality is an inevitable consequence. So it is logical argument upon which you must build your case and not scientific enquiry.

In logic and science when we arrive at mutually exclusive truths, we know that an error has been made.

Agreed. However, in science, that error can be in the theory, the data, the testing equipment, many places. You are mish-mashing scientific method and logical debate here in a confusing manner. Stick to logic and I will agree with that point.

We must thus assume the same for morality, if indeed objective morality exists. Therefore, if there is objective morality, it must be internally consistent and not self-contradictory.

Non-sequitur. You have not shown that objective morality has an isomorphism with scientific method or logical argument. The fact that I agree that inconsistencies in scientific study imply errors does not imply that the same is true of morality. Why must morality follow the same rules as science? One could make similar claims for consistency in spelling but inconsistencies in spelling rules do not imply that there is no objective korekt wey of speling a wurd.

Isn't the mere fact that some people do not find things, which you regard as objectively wrong, to be wrong, an inconsistency?

[Drewish]

Non-sequitur. You have not shown that objective morality has an isomorphism with scientific method or logical argument. The fact that I agree that inconsistencies in scientific study imply errors does not imply that the same is true of morality. Why must morality follow the same rules as science? One could make similar claims for consistency in spelling but inconsistencies in spelling rules do not imply that there is no objective korekt wey of speling a wurd.

Isn't the mere fact that some people do not find things, which you regard as objectively wrong, to be wrong, an inconsistency?

No, the difference here is that spelling is a human construct. If there is objective morality it must exist outside of culture. If objective morality exists it must be based on the natural world at a much more basic level than human society. I will (assuming we get there, and my logic is not disproven before hand) be attempting to establish morality as a biological principle.

[FBM]

When a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the offspring of his predecessor. Infanticide. Is this immoral?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Non-sequitur. You have not shown that objective morality has an isomorphism with scientific method or logical argument. The fact that I agree that inconsistencies in scientific study imply errors does not imply that the same is true of morality. Why must morality follow the same rules as science? One could make similar claims for consistency in spelling but inconsistencies in spelling rules do not imply that there is no objective korekt wey of speling a wurd.

Isn't the mere fact that some people do not find things, which you regard as objectively wrong, to be wrong, an inconsistency?

No, the difference here is that spelling is a human construct. If there is objective morality it must exist outside of culture. If objective morality exists it must be based on the natural world at a much more basic level than human society. I will (assuming we get there, and my logic is not disproven before hand) be attempting to establish morality as a biological principle.

Morality is a human construct according to those that dispute your claim. You have yet to show that it is not. Please do not fall into the trap of using properties of morality that are only true if your claim is correct as stepping stones in your argument.

[Trolldor]

Maybe I missed something here, but from where I am standing what BAA is writing hardly constitutes as personal. He challenges the concept that morals are objective and asks evidence backing up claims that they are.

My previous post was challenging the idea of subjective reality, and it's nice to know people constitute it as 'personal'. Christ, does everyone need me to say 'please' and 'thank you' after every post for it to be 'impersonal'? Seems it was 'personal' the moment I started asking for evidence to support the idea of a subjective reality. Any evidence at all. Anywhere. In any way, shape or form. Here's a little hint to people considering them 'personal': You're not that important to me.
As for objective morality, you'd have to establish that a child born and raised in a 'social vaccum' would have a basic set of morals. We happen to know that's not the case at all.

[Drewish]

I haven't made any such claim! I haven't attempted to 'prove' anything other than to say that if someone says "morality is x, y and z" and x, y and z aren't logically consistent, then they are wrong. That's it! That's all I've been trying to say for the last 3 posts, and you're constantly accusing me of trying to cheat, not that you simply think I'm wrong, but that I'm somehow being disingenuous. You obviously have no intention of actually discussing this issue (by your claiming that I must prove morality is objective while accepting the definition of 'morality' as presented by people who don't believe that it's objective and then citing their disagreement as evidence that I must be wrong.) Those are impossible standards and they aren't the least bit forthright. If you're not willing to actually honestly discuss something, then don't start a thread asking people to discuss it.

EDIT -
Directed at Xamonas Chegwé

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I haven't made any such claim! I haven't attempted to 'prove' anything other than to say that if someone says "morality is x, y and z" and x, y and z aren't logically consistent, then they are wrong. That's it! That's all I've been trying to say for the last 3 posts, and you're constantly accusing me of trying to cheat, not that you even think I'm wrong, but that I'm somehow being disingenuous. You obviously have no intention of actually discussing this issue (by your claiming that I must prove morality is objective while accepting the definition of 'morality' as presented by people who don't believe that it's objective and then citing their disagreement as evidence that I must be wrong.) Those are impossible standards and they aren't the least bit forthright. If you're not willing to actually honestly discuss something, then don't start a thread asking people to discuss it.

EDIT -
Directed at Xamonas Chegwé

"I haven't attempted to 'prove' anything other than to say that if someone says "morality is x, y and z" and x, y and z aren't logically consistent, then they are wrong. That's it!"

And I have disputed that claim. If the rest of your argument flows from that claim then you need to establish it before you can proceed.

I never accused you of being disingenuous at all. If anything, I accused you of faulty logic.

In order to prove anything logically, you have to take agreed statements and show that your claim follows logically from those statements. What you cannot do, is to assume that your claim is true and then use consequences of that truth as steps in your argument - that is just bootstrapping. (Unless you are a theist of course - they do that all the time - theology is a branch of philosophy that refuses to test the claim of its central premise - that god exists - but I digress...)

The only time that you can assume the truth of an unproven assertion in logical argument is if you intend to disprove it using reductio ad absurdum (which I am sure you do not want to do.)

I am sorry if you think I am being harsh but I am merely trying to understand your argument and to point out places where it appears to fall down.

[FBM]

*cough* When a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the offspring of his predecessor. Infanticide. Is this immoral?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

*cough* When a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the offspring of his predecessor. Infanticide. Is this immoral?

Immoral to who? Me, you, or the lion? But this does beg the question about whether an objective morality applies merely to humans, and if not, to which other animals?

[Drewish]

*cough* When a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the offspring of his predecessor. Infanticide. Is this immoral?

I'm not ignoring you. It's just that Rumertron is claiming that the Universe doesn't really exist and Xamonas Chegwé is claiming that all all my arguments must be logically consistent while also saying that there's no reason why morality can't be illogical and simultaneously objective. Your question is a good one, and I hope we get to it, but there's no way we can meaningfully discuss it with the postmodernists claiming that the world isn't real and that logic only applies when they want it to.

[FBM]

*cough* When a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the offspring of his predecessor. Infanticide. Is this immoral?

I'm not ignoring you. It's just that Rumertron is claiming that the Universe doesn't really exist and Xamonas Chegwé is claiming that all all my arguments must be logically consistent while also saying that there's no reason why morality can't be illogical and simultaneously objective. Your question is a good one, and I hope we get to it, but there's no way we can meaningfully discuss it with the postmodernists claiming that the world isn't real and that logic only applies when they want it to.

It's just a simple yes/no question.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Xamonas Chegwé is claiming that all all my arguments must be logically consistent while also saying that there's no reason why morality can't be illogical and simultaneously objective.

If your argument is not logically consistent then it is no argument. Objective morality (ie. morality that exists outside of personal, subjective opinion) is not proven to exist at all, much less to have internal logical consistency. First prove the existence of the egg, then show that its yolk is yellow.

And I am not a post-modernist (although that is of course my purely subjective opinion.)

[Rum]

To clarify my position concerning the relative nature of so called reality and its relation to the (clearly) relative nature of morality let me say the following.

Morality clearly (unless you are a deist) does not exist 'out there'. The universe we observe clearly does in some form. It seems unlikely (but could possibly be) a figment of my consciousness. However it is the nature of the stuff 'out there' that I was trying to get at. Our human minds are pattern seekers it seems and we go around categorising everything we lay eyes on. My view is that objects 'out there' have a 'reality' that is hugely complex, multi-faceted and very 'other' to what we perceive.

First of all we filter our a great deal of the information flying around the place as a result of evolutionary processes and we are programmed as a result to only see and perceive what helped out ancestors survive on the savannah or wherever. Human being in effect 'render' the world, much as computer software might render a wire frame with a pattern, colour or whatever. Now that to me is s subjective take on the universe out there. We simplify it enormously with our perception and also attribute much of it where function is concerned (e.g. a pile of wood becoming a chair etc) with subjective definitions. A chair, one could argue, is only a chair to a human being and has no objective existence as a chair outside of human consciousness. This applies to morality too, though the starting points are different in that the concept of morality is abstract as opposed to that of a chair which has real stuff as part of its identity.

[Drewish]

Perhaps I've been too gracious here. Okay Xamonas Chegwé. Let's assume that morality doesn't need to be logically consistent. Now tell me why we should teach evolution instead of creationism.

Oh and:

*cough* When a male lion takes over a pride, he will often kill the offspring of his predecessor. Infanticide. Is this immoral?

No, it is not immoral.

Rumertron,
I would agree that our view of the world is innately subjective, but saying that and saying that the world itself is subjective are two different things. I would not claim that I am some arbiter of final morality (that would be absurd) but one does not have to know everything to claim that one can know some things.

[Rum]

By way of apology my post (above Andrew's) is clumsy, poorly typed and grammatically suspect. In my defence I was not drunk , but taking a break from writing a letter to a Member of Parliament - (honestly!) on behalf of my boss. Stress was the killer factor. Anyway I hope the sense of it was contained within the awkward wording.