#objective morality

Not intended to be confrontational! Just, hopefully, thought-provoking to anyone who happens to mosey on by my little corner of the Internet. I noticed a very common fallacy in "pro-choice" arguments and had some thoughts about it.

For abortion supporters: 

I have to ask, where are you getting this “should”? This common appeal to bodily autonomy as an intrinsic “right” that all humans should recognize and observe? The very concept of intrinsic rights flies in the face of the popular pro-abortion belief that must assume that the value of a human is extrinsic and thus arbitrary (i.e., must fulfill certain conditions or criteria to have worth sufficient to live, such as being wanted, being a certain age or size, having a certain degree of independence, or being in a certain location, being a certain “race”, being a certain sex, etc., etc.). Since biology and science are very clear that the reproductive product of two humans is a unique human from the moment of conception, it follows that an unborn child/ “fetus” is a human from the moment of conception and thus also has those intrinsic, inalienable rights – the same ones which you claim somehow give you the right to transgress her inalienable right to life. This, in itself, is all you need to show that this pro-abortion belief is inherently self-contradictory. Even beyond that, the point is moot regardless – every civilized society recognizes the need to restrict the lesser right of bodily autonomy in the case of its expression becoming a direct/active threat to another’s primary rights (i.e., the right to life). (Otherwise – murder? Meh, a matter of opinion. “I was expressing my bodily autonomy to hack her into pieces and stuff them in a trash bag, officer! What are you gonna do about it?” Secondhand smoking laws? Violations of the smoker’s bodily autonomy. Laws against underage drinking or driving under the influence? Don’t even try it. Seatbelt laws? No, because bodily autonomy!) 

But there’s still more than that! Any appeal to recognize bodily autonomy or any other “inherent” or intrinsic human right must be an appeal to an objective morality – a moral standard from a higher authority that applies to all humans, regardless of belief, culture, time period, or other factors. Without this appeal to a morality that all instinctively recognize, there could be no “should” about anything. Might would make right, and only the evolutionarily fittest individuals or societies “should” survive. Without objective morality, no one would care about anyone else’s rights to anything, because those rights themselves would be a nonsensical concept. 

Even better – this particular higher moral standard to which you appeal is unique and easily recognizable. It is that of the God of the Bible (see Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis for a more step-by-step process to that conclusion). This is the same God in the same Bible that commands “do not murder”, says that He is our God from the womb onward, provides unborn children with the same legal protection that is given to born people, and consistently speaks to, refers to, and interacts with the unborn in exactly the same way He does with the born. 

In short, the pro-abortion belief appeals to an objective morality it usually claims not to believe in and the moral standard of the same God they usually also say they don’t believe in (and the same God who says “don’t murder” and that unborn babies are people) in order to say that murdering other people is an intrinsic right for some people. 

Make it make sense! :D  Sources:

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins https://www.tumblr.com/life-advocate-feminist/622491663491842048/life-begins-at-conception-masterpost?source=share Abortion: A Matter of Choice? · Videos · Creation.com  

https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Jacobs_36n2.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185346/20210729162737297_19-1392%20BRIEF%20OF%20BIOLOGISTS%20AS%20AMICI%20CURIAE%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20NEITHER%20PARTY.pdf https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/2243-abortion-and-the-ancient-practice-of-child-sacrifice https://resources.care-net.org/pro-choice-christians/?utm_source=lifenews.com&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=abortion_hotline_pledge https://youtu.be/P3j0raroDqM https://www.openbible.info/topics/the_value_of_human_life https://bibleteacher.org/2019/08/08/all-human-life-is-precious/

Proverbs 31:8 

Luke 1:44 

2nd Kings 17:17 

Jeremiah 19:5 

Genesis 9:6 

Exodus 21:22-25 

Matthew 7:20 - 23 

John 15:14 

1st John 1:5-10, 2:3-6 

Exodus 20:13 

Mark 10:13-15 Leviticus 20:3-5 (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mizzaro_2233.htm) 

Matthew 18:10, 14

Psalm 22:10

If morality is both subjective and culturally defined how should we determine when to intervene to prevent harm?

Interesting and good question!

Here’s the thing: Morality is subjective, yes, until we decide as a group on what we’ll base it on. Then we can objectively make decisions about what is and isn’t moral.

Most people (atheist and theist alike) tend to be in rough agreement that maximizing well-being and minimizing harm is a good baseline for morality, so from there we can objectively make decisions. Though, that being said, some things will inevitably fall into a grey area that kinda comes down to personal preference and point of view (e.g. if abortion counts as murder or not).

In the case of something more concretely good vs bad, for example, we know for a fact that slavery causes harm to those enslaved, so based on our decision to minimize harm, slavery is bad. Feeding the hungry, on the other hand, greatly maximizes well-being, so it’s good.

It’s also worth noting that sometimes while we agree on the end goal, we may disagree on how to accomplish it (e.g. I might prefer the government be the one feeding the hungry vs you might prefer that charities do so instead, but we both agree that the hungry should be fed).

In other words, it’s complicated. Lol

I think that morality is ultimately something of a group-wide learning experience that’s been going on for millennia, which is part of why ancient texts typically read as pretty horrific from our point of view – we know better now, so the thought of selling one’s daughter into slavery is mind-boggling to a modern reader, but in Ancient Hebrew culture it was just “how things are done” because women were seen as more like property than people. 

I’m sure there will be plenty of stuff that we do that will seem abhorrent to civilizations of the future (if we last that long) that we don’t give a second thought to nowadays. 

Now, as to when we should act: it kind of depends on the situation (as usual, context is key). I think the more harm a situation is causing, and the more immediate the issue, the more likely we should interfere.

objective morality

coming eventually

@the-green-nephew

From post-modernists to moral relativists to serious discussions about simulation theory and chaos magick, there has been a growing rejection of the concept of “objective truth”.  What I mean by objective truth is a form of knowledge independent from individual subjectivity.  A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.  Essentially the idea that tallest mountain in the world is still the tallest even when there’s no one to observe and measure it.  

Critics of object truth generally attack the concept by stating that all information about the world is gained through our subjective senses and then interpreted through the subjective lenses of our mental models.  These mental models differ between individuals based on a variety of factors including: personal experiences, cognitive biases, cultural and personal values, education, religious beliefs, etc.  Many people may look at the exact same thing and all interpret it to be something different.  While these criticisms bring up valid concerns there is still the fact that everyone is looking at something, even if they can’t agree on what that thing is.  Where we draw the line to distinguish the names, value, and meaning of a thing are subjectively derived but the absence or presence of a thing is much harder to deny.  You can argue all day whether or not a gun is loaded but no matter how fancy your argument is it won’t stop the gun from firing.  

When it comes down to it, I think the academics and thinkers who abandon the pursuit of "objective truth" because it's "unattainable" are totally missing the point... 

Objective truth falls into the same category as “justice”, a “good life”, and “moral purity”. Objective truth is a type of "perfection" meaning that it's an ideal to strive toward but impossible to obtain in an imperfect, limited universe populated by a variety of imperfect and limited beings.  

The pursuit of objective truth (scientifically, spiritually, philosophically, or otherwise) is similar to the mathematics concept of a limit.  Any attempt to reach the desired value will get forever closer without ever actually reaching it.  Applied fields, like engineering, routinely demonstrate that a limit does not need to be reached in order to design something that is by all practical standards "close enough" and brings real value to people.  

Just because it’s impossible for us (beings limited to sensory experience and subjective interpretation of information) to reach true objectivity, doesn’t mean we should abandon the whole concept of objective truth for some kind of relativistic solipsism.  That's the same kind of logic as saying, you are incapable of being morally perfect, therefore you should abandon even trying to be a good person.  Constantly striving toward an unattainable perfection is the only way to consistently grow as a person and as a civilization.  

I do not plan to explain all the intellectual developments mentioned in the preceding paragraph; I rely on the reader's familiarity with contemporary intellectual culture to recognize most of what I have just mentioned. Nor do I plan to discuss their intellectual merits-in some cases, the attitudes may have been justified, while in others they were not. My point here is that, whatever else may be said about them, all those cultural developments have at least one thing in common: cynicism. Western culture of the past fifty years must be among the most cynical cultures in world history. And that thoroughgoing cynicism has made the widespread acceptance of ethical intuitionism impossible in our culture, whatever the intellectual merits of the theory. A culture that insists that humans are fundamentally selfish and ignoble will never accept any account of moral motivation. A culture that declares the notions of truth, knowledge, and objectivity delusory will never accept my account of moral knowledge. And a culture that seeks to tear down all values will never accept moral realism. Subjectivism, non-cognitivism, and nihilism have been popular, in short, because they offer the modern mind the perverse pleasure of debunking morality.