I don't think laws are moral. I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Laws are what the largest proportion of people in a pure democracy have agreed is moral. If you think laws are consistently being put into place that don't reflect the morality of the populace, then you have an issue with your democracy, and that needs to be sorted out first.
I personally do not believe in objective morality. I'm not religious and without believing in a prime mover I think that's a very hard claim to make.
To not believe in objective morality, I'm assuming because you are not religious or maybe because it is too difficult to "pin down", to me seems to lack intellectual rigour and displays a lack of social empathy. Morality, even aside from the religious back and forth, is a difficult and nuanced subject but that is not to say that it lacks a strong core that most reasonable people believe in (even apart from religious beliefs). Organised social empathy, along with advanced intellect (the ability to conceptualise the subjective and objective aspects of morality), are probably the biggest fundamentals of human nature that separates us from other species on this planet. In my opinion giving those fundamentals short shrift only denigrates yourself.
Without a higher power you're left with diads that are impossible to resolve logically.
For example, "the ends justify the means" vs "the ends do not justify the means".
Two people can believe in some ultimate social good (your version of "objective morality"). That doesn't mean they'll get there in the same way (my version of "objective morality").
> I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy.
Unfortunately, "participants" turns out to be decided by lobbying influence, not votes.
Most people who aren't murderers, and a few who are. Are you saying that murder is not wrong?
BTW, please don't troll. If you're just asking, "Who says murder is wrong?" to be rhetorical or make a point, don't. Instead, make your point explicitly in the first place, so that we can move forward in the discussion. I'm not interested in playing games, but I am interested in seriously discussing the topic.
So, either you think murder is wrong, or you don't--or you think that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, which boils down to isn't. So which is it?
Is killing in self-defense murder? If not why not?
If yes, how are they "objectively" wrong?
If you're a pacifist that believes all killing is wrong, fair enough. But that doesn't make your standards "objective". There are shades of grey to all morality, you pretending otherwise does you no service.
The same applies in this case. Having popular opinion on your side does not make your morality "objective". That's not how this works.
fastball - Who says [murder] is wrong?
explainplease - Most people who aren't murderers, and a few who are. Are you saying that murder is not wrong?
I'm sorry if I took your response of "many people think this" as a serious response. You are not giving me much else to work with, I'm afraid. You have also failed to answer any of my subsequent questions about murder and killing. And if you can't answer my questions about murder, which apparently is such an easy moral issue for you, then how can you possibly think you have a handle on the nuance of taxation?
You're the one dodging questions here. You imply that you think murder isn't wrong, but you decline to define it. You raise strawman questions about "killing" when I specifically asked about murder.
It's very simple: do you think murder is wrong? Yes or no?
If your answer is yes, then we can talk about the definition of murder as opposed to war, justified homicide, etc.
If your answer is no, then we can talk about objective morality, and why it wouldn't be ok for me to kill you just because I feel like it--i.e. why there is objective morality, because if there isn't, then there is no moral reason for me not to kill you and take all your stuff whenever I feel like it.
> I'm sorry if I took your response of "many people think this" as a serious response. ... And if you can't answer my questions about murder, which apparently is such an easy moral issue for you.
You literally asked, "Who says murder is wrong?" I literally answered the question. Your question was obviously rhetorical, yet pointless, because you didn't make a point by asking it. So I then asked the relevant, next, serious question, to move the discussion forward. You then declined to answer it, instead making silly personal attacks, as if performing for an audience. Note, BTW, that I haven't said anything about taxation.
It seems to be you who is not interested in seriously discussing objective morality, yet it is you who raised the topic, and you obviously know that most people disagree. Therefore you seem to be trolling. A shame, because it could be an interesting conversation.
Please prove me wrong by taking the conversation seriously now.
My initial, poorly fleshed-out question was a measured response to your initial, poorly fleshed-out question. I was giving your question the response it deserved. If you wanted a more thoughtful response, you probably should've gone with something a bit more thoughtful than:
"I don't believe in objective morality."
"HA! WHAT ABOUT MURDER?! GOTCHA!"
What about murder? Explain, please. What about murder do you think so beautifully proves objective morality that you don't need to do anything except mention it? If anyone is trolling, if the burden of proof is on anyone, it's you. At the risk of "putting words in your mouth", you seem to be claiming that there is an objective morality. I am saying "I see no evidence to support that claim, and therefore reject it". My rejection does not then require evidence to support it.
If you really want me to spell it my thinking for you: I have no reason to believe in an objective morality, because the only things I think are objective in this universe are related to physical laws of nature, which happened by random chance. From there, I see no reason to link these physical and random laws with our human understanding of morality. If there was a prime mover that created these physical laws and ordered the universe, and was therefore "above" my conception of the universe, presumably any moral code this prime mover laid down would be "objective". However, I do not believe in such a being.
If you have a logical argument for objective morality without a higher power, lay it on me. But "what about murder?" is not an argument. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but just to be clear: plenty of people and cultures have felt morally comfortable with what you probably think of as murder. Please stop wasting our time if that's all you have.
Thank you, that is the kind of serious response I was hoping for (although a bit less snark would be nice, but, of course, without morality, what does it matter?).
I agree with you: without a higher power, there is no logical reason for objective morality. The closest that one may come is a purely utilitarian argument that society benefits as a whole if people refrain from actions such as murder, and that such societal benefits then pass to an individual who chooses to refrain from them. But, of course, that does not necessarily preclude an individual committing murder in a certain case if he calculates the benefit to himself to exceed that of refraining, if he thinks he can get away with it.
So, then, my question is this: if a person wants to commit murder for purely selfish reasons (e.g. revenge, financial, power, etc), would it be acceptable to you? If you were the only witness, would you turn him in and testify against him?
I personally do not believe in objective morality. I'm not religious and without believing in a prime mover I think that's a very hard claim to make.