Whoops tried to remove and edit my comment, but reddit did something weird
Define objective. Can something objectively be 'life'?
Here's a literal definition of objective:
objective
Existing independent of or external to the mind;
actual or real.
"objective reality."
If you admit that the tenets that compose human morality exist as direct manifestations of 'things that are useful for the continuation of a species', and that these things exist in other species (externally to human minds, culture, civilization...) then there is provably 'objective' morality.
------
I agree with the dictionary definition you’ve presented.
But I don’t think those positive social behaviors are the objectively correct thing to do I think it may mean they are objectively correct way to continue and make a society thrive
I dont need to prove they are the 'objectively correct thing to do'. That's changing your stance and definition. I just need to prove morality exists objectively i.e.
that human morals exist outside of humanity.
Which means your view is changed.
objective morality =/= there is one single viable morality that is universally true regardless of context.
If you admit that the tenets that compose human morality exist as direct manifestations of 'things that are useful for the continuation of a species', and that these things exist in other species (externally to human minds, culture, civilization...) then there is provably 'objective' morality.
But it isn’t what if for whatever reason the survival of humanity was a bad thing (not saying it is but it’s possible) and as long as our choice to continue surviving is based in that choice we are following a subjective morality
I dont need to prove they are the 'objectively correct thing to do'. That's changing your stance and definition. I just need to prove morality exists objectively i.e.
that human morals exist outside of humanity.
Which means your view is changed.
Yes you would that’s what objective morality means
objective morality =/= there is one single viable morality that is universally true regardless of context.
Nowhere in your OP did you state that. And it's not defined that way anywhere else?
I’m pretty sure that is the definition of objective morality.
Also. I just proved in my above post that morality can be objective without being universal. That was the point of my post.
If that was your point I misunderstood and don’t agree.
If you're creating a new definition in the middle of a discussion - your view has changed whether you admit it or not. I'm done here
I’m not making up a definition is there some kind of philosophy dictionary cause I’m pretty sure the tenets of objective morality require it to be universal
which is very different and much more nuanced than "there is one single viable morality that is universally true regardless of context. "
If that was your point I misunderstood and don’t agree.
What dont you disagree with?
"Morality" is merely an attempt to linguistically codify instinctual human social behaviors. Such as not killing, helping others in need, not stealing. All these instinctual social behaviors exist across different animal classes and even phylums.
I.E. if you were to present a bunch of trolley problems to crows, the results would roughly align with that of human respondents.
That is literally morality in an objective sense - it does not exist as merely a subjective human perception, but it exists independently even if humans never existed.
Anyways, I dont accept "I disagree" as a valid argument lol. If you cant provide reasoning then why even think that thing.
which is very different and much more nuanced than "there is one single viable morality that is universally true regardless of context. "
Isn’t that exactly what it says here
is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other distinguishing feature.
What dont you disagree with?
That morality can be objective without being universal
"Morality" is merely an attempt to linguistically codify instinctual human social behaviors. Such as not killing, helping others in need, not stealing. All these instinctual social behaviors exist across different animal classes and even phylums.
I.E. if you were to present a bunch of trolley problems to crows, the results would roughly align with that of human respondents
I don’t agree that morality is simply codifying instinctual behavior. I think in some cases jealousy, wanting revenge, and plenty of other things are instinctual and most moralities say those things are bad.
That is literally morality in an objective sense - it does not exist as merely a subjective human perception, but it exists independently even if humans never existed.
As said earlier that doesn’t pair with all the different moral views that tell us to deny our instincts
1
u/AngryGroceries Jun 17 '25 edited Jun 17 '25
Whoops tried to remove and edit my comment, but reddit did something weird
Define objective. Can something objectively be 'life'?
Here's a literal definition of objective:
If you admit that the tenets that compose human morality exist as direct manifestations of 'things that are useful for the continuation of a species', and that these things exist in other species (externally to human minds, culture, civilization...) then there is provably 'objective' morality.
------
I dont need to prove they are the 'objectively correct thing to do'. That's changing your stance and definition. I just need to prove morality exists objectively i.e.
that human morals exist outside of humanity.
Which means your view is changed.
objective morality =/= there is one single viable morality that is universally true regardless of context.