Where does morality come from?

[Ana the Ist]

... do you want to go out on a limb and show me a psychiatrist or psychologist who is worth their salt and who thinks that a moral problem like "pedophilia" is simply a matter of taste?

Psychology doesn't determine moral positions. You do seem genuinely interested in this though....so here...

Overview of Paraphilic Disorders - Psychiatric Disorders - Merck Manuals Professional Edition

Pedophilia is viewed as the same type of disorder as voyeurism....and you may note there's zero mention of good and evil.

Or how about showing me a number of psychiatrists or psychologists who truly think that morality is just a matter of taste? If you can, then I guess we can just say that the qualifications that go into the I.R.B. are just a matter of taste, too, ay?

What difference does that make? Since when did you consider psychologists as experts of morality lol?

Before we move on to the rest of what you've stated, I'd like to see your answer to these questions first.

My answer is pretty simple...

Psychology has nothing to do with morality nor do psychologists lay claim to any such expertise. Your questions about the beliefs of psychologists are irrelevant and frankly, completely unnecessary.

And I'll just add that, even though it doesn't serve as the 'last word' in this issue---in fact, I'd say it's just a beginning point---I'll call Martha Stout up as my first source in touting that if we are to acknowledge the existence of off-kilter mental states, such as sociopathy/psychopathy, then we can also begin to more objectively assert a minimal, generally common moral intuition ... even if that common intution doesn't equate to a perfectly rigid moral code between each and every single individual.

Stout, Martha (2005). The Sociopath Next Door. New York, NY: MJF Books.

What do you want me to do with this? Go out and find the book....read it....and then tell you how you got it wrong? Here's an average explanation of psychopaths and sociopaths...

Differences Between a Psychopath vs Sociopath

You'll note that it's clearly stated that violence is not necessarily intrinsic to either label and there's no mention of them being "evil". Instead, the discussion is entirely about clusters of traits and characteristics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Psychology doesn't determine moral positions. You do seem genuinely interested in this though....so here...

Overview of Paraphilic Disorders - Psychiatric Disorders - Merck Manuals Professional Edition

Pedophilia is viewed as the same type of disorder as voyeurism....and you may note there's zero mention of good and evil.

You might be overestimating 'my' interest in that particular subject. Actually, with all of the mentioning it gets around here on CF between this thread and those in the apologetics section, I thought I'd mention it too. Besides, it's not as if it's one of my 'favorite' topics because it isn't. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your effort to add some academic substance to the topic, but I'm more interested in the fact that, despite whatever egregious type deviancy, we can generally acknowledge that such a thing as sociopathy/psychopathy exists through which at least some 'evil' is created by dysfunctional agents in the world.

What difference does that make? Since when did you consider psychologists as experts of morality lol?

Did I say they were 'experts' in morality? No, I don't think I did. But nevertheless, as in science, there has to be some modicum of ethics (and moral substance) within each researcher or else we couldn't really do science.

I'll get to the rest later ...

 

[Kylie]

And just like 1 + 1 = 5 is objectively wrong certain acts are objectively wrong like sexually abusing a child. People can claim they are right and good but they are wrong.

Again with the extreme example. Why do moral objectivists always go with the extreme examples to prove their case? Why don't you guys ever use less extreme examples? Surely if there is an objective morality it will apply just as much to the issue of whether it is wrong to lie about whether someone looks good in that particular suit. So, what is the objective moral position on that? If someone is wearing a suit that looks bad, and they ask me what I think, do I tell them they look like the dog's breakfast, or do I lie and tell them they look great? What does your objective morality say about that?

So would you allow the person who is happy stealing from others to take your stuff?

No. Why do you think that subjective morality demands that I let them do this?

Why is that morally good.

If you can't understand why keeping our society running smoothly is a good thing for us, then I certainly can't help you.

It is strong support for objective morality as it points to everyone believing that certain acts are always wrong even if they claim they are not. Because they have reacted against their own subjective views. Acting against there own subjective viewpoints to some other influence outside themself causing their subjective view to change.

No, it's not.

First of all, not everyone shares those views.

Secondly, it only comes close to working in extreme cases. What about the example I used of the guy in the bad suit? What's the objectively moral thing to say in that case?

It is difficult because I cannot understand why under subjective morality if there is no ultimate measure for right and wrong why any idea of hurting someone equates to being wrong. Morals are not based on feelings. One person may feel good and another bad about some act do to them.

I honestly don't know how to explain empathy to you. If you have empathy then I don't see how you could not understand what I am saying.

Why if there is no opposite to something then what are you comparing it with. Evil means nothing without an opposite to make it evil. In fact, Evil is a departure from good.

The way we can tell a good bowler from a bad bowler is by a scorecard. The measure helps us determine a good bowler from a bad one. C. S Lewis said a good portrait is good by comparing it to the original. So, whenever you have the words good or bad you must have some sort of standards to measure what is good or bad. When talking about morals we are talking about how certain actions or behaviors happen to be good or bad in themselves.

So, when a person says that something is objectively good or bad you are saying that someone has either conformed to those sets of rules (good score) or broken those sets of rules (bad score). This is what makes our language about morality coherent, that we have some sort of understanding of what good and bad means attached to a reference point.
How Do Moral Absolutes Prove That God Exists?

So I could put you in a big vat of boiling water and you won't experience the extreme heat unless some part of you is in cold water. Is that what you are suggesting?

Otherwise, under subjective morality, any appeal to measure what is good or bad ultimately is incoherent and means nothing. It's a biologically evolved illusionary idea.

Again you don't understand that in subjective morality there is no ultimate standard of meaning.

Then you must agree that there is no good and evil under subjective morality. Any appeal to there being evil in the world and calling an act evil is an illusion.

Yes.

There are things that most people would agree are evil, but as I have said countless times already, the fact that a lot of people share an opinion doesn't make that opinion objectively true.

No, they would be a hypocrite. You misunderstood what I said. The person said It was OK to take the money from the Pizza guy. But when someone did the same thing to them they reacted differently and said it wasn't OK to take the money from them.

And that would be because morality is subjective.

If for example and this is a hypothetical and not that you would take this position. But if you said it is OK to take the extra change from the Pizza guy but when someone did the same to you, you would say it was wrong.

And this wouldn't work if morality was objective.

Therefore contradicting your moral position and showing that it is wrong to take other people's money. All people would think this was wrong even if they previously said it was OK. The point is people say these things about others but in lived experience, they react like it is always wrong when it happens to them.

And this only works with subjective morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Psychology doesn't determine moral positions. You do seem genuinely interested in this though....so here...

Overview of Paraphilic Disorders - Psychiatric Disorders - Merck Manuals Professional Edition

Pedophilia is viewed as the same type of disorder as voyeurism....and you may note there's zero mention of good and evil.



What difference does that make? Since when did you consider psychologists as experts of morality lol?



My answer is pretty simple...

Psychology has nothing to do with morality nor do psychologists lay claim to any such expertise. Your questions about the beliefs of psychologists are irrelevant and frankly, completely unnecessary.

As a Christian and as an amateur philosopher, and as one who has an interest in the social sciences (drats---fouled by my master's degree again), I think IT IS necessary ... which isn't to say that I expect anyone to agree with me. With that said, and being the realist that I am, and if the bible is true, I'd expect a boat-load of disagreements with me, with my view of ethics, and with the ways in which I may evaluate 'the moral life' on axiological grounds.

What do you want me to do with this? Go out and find the book....read it....and then tell you how you got it wrong? Here's an average explanation of psychopaths and sociopaths...

Differences Between a Psychopath vs Sociopath

That's not really what I was looking for. Besides, my source I mentioned above doesn't make that distinction; in fact, she more or less purposely obscures the dividing mark and lumps one in with the other. But, I do realize that is her theoretical position, not that I think it makes much difference ontologically where good and evil are concerned.

My point is, there are some actions that a majority of people can readily recognize as egregious, immoral actions that should not be accepted for very long, if at all---something like the Nazi Blitzkrieg ( of Poland) being one of them, for example. But I suppose, so as to take out the emotional sting, we could just talk about "stealing someone else's crayon box ..."

You'll note that it's clearly stated that violence is not necessarily intrinsic to either label and there's no mention of them being "evil". Instead, the discussion is entirely about clusters of traits and characteristics.

Do we want to label the form of social ideas that inhere within the minds of sociopaths as 'good' then, whether that describes the overall functional well-being which they have within themselves for themselves or that which describes the latent potential that they could act upon and affect others? I wouldn't!

 

[Ana the Ist]

As a Christian and as an amateur philosopher, and as one who has an interest in the social sciences (drats---fouled by my master's degree again), I think IT IS necessary ...

Ok...I'll bite...why is it necessary? Why would a psychologist's personal beliefs about morality matter at all to our discussion of morality?

That's not really what I was looking for. Besides, my source I mentioned above doesn't make that distinction;

Your "source" is a book title. It's basically useless to our discussion....because I don't know what's in the book.

You can claim it says anything...I have no way of knowing.

in fact, she more or less purposely obscures the dividing mark and lumps one in with the other. But, I do realize that is her theoretical position, not that I think it makes much difference ontologically where good and evil are concerned.

My point is, there are some actions that a majority of people can readily recognize as egregious, immoral actions that should not be accepted for very long, if at all---something like the Nazi Blitzkrieg ( of Poland) being one of them, for example. But I suppose, so as to take out the emotional sting, we could just talk about "stealing someone else's crayon box ..."

Do you think that a majority consensus can determine objective morals?

Do we want to label the form of social ideas that inhere within the minds of sociopaths as 'good' then, whether that describes the overall functional well-being which they have within themselves for themselves or that which describes the latent potential that they could act upon and affect others? I wouldn't!

I'm not aware of any social ideas inherent in sociopaths. Sociopathy isn't a set of ideas or beliefs.

Again, we're talking about characteristics or personality traits that are stronger or more prominent than in the general population.

For example, impulsivity. We all can be impulsive from time to time. Let's say that on a scale of 1-10...the average person scores between 4-6 on impulsivity. A sociopath however, might score 8-10 on average....displaying more impulsivity than the average person.

That's all it is.

 

[stevevw]

True! The measurement is completely subjective.

So, therefore, subjective measures cannot measure moral values objectively IE measure whether or not your own morals are ultimately right or wrong outside your own view. Therefore you cannot tell that anyone else that their morals are ultimately wrong. Therefore you cannot tell anyone else that they should not commit that wrong against you because you are then pushing your moral position onto them which is taking an objective position.

Like I said earlier, regardless of if someone believes morality is objective or subjective, they behave the same when it comes to moral issues.

That's true. But what do you mean to behave the same?

Anybody who looks at my house will see I have a tree in the front lawn. 100% of the people who see my house will acknowledge this. Nobody will claim it is a car, a rock, or anything other than a tree. Granted there is nothing stopping someone from claiming the tree is actually a rock, car, or something else, but in order to do this they would have to knowingly lie. Under the scenario I used in my previous response, Little Johnny, Jimmy, and Jane all believe their various moral philosophies are all the right ones none of them are knowing lying because unlike trees which are all objective, moral philosophies are all subjective. does this make sense to you?

That is not how the argument for whether our lived experience of physical reality works when it comes to assessing whether it is true or not. The question is despite being able to tell that you have a tree in your front yard it is whether your experience of that physical situation is not some idea implanted in your head because you are a brain in a jar or live in some matrix that makes you think that you are seeing a tree in your front yard.

But because there is no contrary evidence that points to us being a brain in a jar or in a matrix we can be justified to believe that the physical reality that we experience is real. It is the same for our lived moral experience. Because we observe that people react and live like there are objective morals we can be justified that our lived moral experience is a true indication of what is happening.

To dispute our moral lived experience you would have to come up with a defeater that proved not only was our moral experience mistaken but also totally unreliable that we could not realize any objective morals at all. The level of evidence would have to be as strong as any defeater that showed our physical world (the tree in your front yard as well as everything other physical objects) is not real but the result of an image of our world planted in our brain that was in a jar or a matrix.

But even if you want to use physical examples as objective measures there are people who believe disagree about what certain physical objects are. For example the flat earth society, people who believe men are women based on their self-perceived identity which is a subjective view. I could name dozens of examples.

 

[stevevw]

If we're talking about objective morality then it doesn't matter if all the parents in this world agree.

I agree it is not just about people agreeing but more about lived moral experience especially someones reaction to a moral situation as this is more of a true indication of what the person believes morally. When we get a consistent reaction regardless or even in spite of what people claim subjectively it seems only right that we can say that this consistent reaction is more representative of what people believe.

I just told you....let's imagine that you say it's bad and someone else says it's good. Obviously you disagree....that doesn't matter.

I'm asking you how you would prove that it's bad. Obviously somewhere there's a pedo who thinks sexually abusing children is good. How would you prove it's bad?

If you can't think of a way....that's ok....because I can't either. When you say that morality is objective though...you're saying it's bad even if everyone in the world agrees it's good. How would you prove it's bad?

Once again this would come down to lived moral experience. It seems people know deep within themselves that certain things are always wrong despite their subjective claims. It is especially apparent when they contradict themselves and that this always lines up with a consistent result about what is good or evil. This includes the fact that any authoritative body will impose certain moral values on people and disregard any subjective positions which would seem counter to the idea of subjectivity.

If you followed what I posted previously any defeater based on skepticism that our moral experience is not a reliable indication of objective morality would have to show that our moral lived experience was not only mistaken but also totally unreliable that we could not realize any objective morals at all. The level of evidence would have to be as strong as any defeater that showed we can have no confidence in our lived experience of the physical world and it was rather the result of some matrix that caused us to think it was that way.

But we have no defeater for both so, therefore, we are justified to believe that our moral experience is a good indication of objective moral values in a properly basic way. So when we see people consistently say that pedophilia is evil and that there is no justification and that no one can justify that it is good, then we can be confident that this is a good indication that it is objectively bad.
Those Who Deny Objective Moral Values | Reasonable Faith

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, therefore, subjective measures cannot measure moral values objectively IE measure whether or not your own morals are ultimately right or wrong outside your own view. Therefore you cannot tell that anyone else that their morals are ultimately wrong. Therefore you cannot tell anyone else that they should not commit that wrong against you because you are then pushing your moral position onto them which is taking an objective position.

You have subjective opinions about all sorts of things...and it doesn't stop you from sharing them.

I can't prove that vanilla ice cream is more delicious than strawberry.... but that's not a reason for me to never share my opinion.

That is not how the argument for whether our lived experience of physical reality works when it comes to assessing whether it is true or not. The question is despite being able to tell that you have a tree in your front yard it is whether your experience of that physical situation is not some idea implanted in your head because you are a brain in a jar or live in some matrix that makes you think that you are seeing a tree in your front yard.

But because there is no contrary evidence that points to us being a brain in a jar or in a matrix we can be justified to believe that the physical reality that we experience is real. It is the same for our lived moral experience. Because we observe that people react and live like there are objective morals we can be justified that our lived moral experience is a true indication of what is happening.

Actually, it's been scientifically proven that we aren't in a simulation...

Sorry, Elon. Physicists say we definitely aren't living in a computer simulation.

Regardless of whether or not you believe that though....your point about objective morality doesn't hold up anyway. We don't actually treat morals as objective.

For starters....we argue in favor of our moral opinions. We don't argue about observable objective facts like 2+2=4. What would be the point? It's easily proven.

Secondly, our morals change over time. People grow up....they gain experience ...they view morals differently.

Thirdly, moral agreement is superficial. Even if you and I say that something is morally bad....you and I don't necessarily mean te same thing by "bad". We may think it's bad for different reasons...or you may think it's extremely bad while I think it's just a little bad.

The reality is that no one in the world agrees with completely in regards to morality. It's entirely subject dependent...

We treat morals as if they're subjective.

To dispute our moral lived experience you would have to come up with a defeater that proved not only was our moral experience mistaken

Mistaken about what? We've already established the fact that morals cannot be proven...they cannot be factually correct or incorrect.

.but also totally unreliable that we could not realize any objective morals at all.

Unreliable? What do you rely on them for?

The level of evidence would have to be as strong as any defeater that showed our physical world (the tree in your front yard as well as everything other physical objects) is not real but the result of an image of our world planted in our brain that was in a jar or a matrix.

The fact that neither you nor anyone else can prove s moral position to be correct seems like a sufficient defeater.

But even if you want to use physical examples as objective measures there are people who believe disagree about what certain physical objects are. For example the flat earth society, people who believe men are women based on their self-perceived identity which is a subjective view. I could name dozens of examples.

The shape of the earth can be proven

 

[stevevw]

You have subjective opinions about all sorts of things...and it doesn't stop you from sharing them.

I can't prove that vanilla ice cream is more delicious than strawberry.... but that's not a reason for me to never share my opinion.

The difference is with moral values is that if we used Ice-cream as an example in how someone tells a person who wrongs them that they are morally wrong and should not take that moral position. It would be like someone saying to another person that they should not like the flavour they like and should like the one they prefer. That is like objective morality.

Under subjective morality, they should be treating it similar to likes of ice-cream and be saying to someone who just stole their car. OK, that's fair enough, that's what you subjectively believe, who am I to tell you that this is wrong because that's what you truly believe. So go ahead take my car you are welcome to it.

Actually, it's been scientifically proven that we aren't in a simulation...

That's not the point. Even before any evidence we were justified to believe what we experienced through our sense was exactly what we sensed and believed. We had no reason to believe we were in some matrix because there was absolutely no verifiable evidence. So it is the same for our moral experience that people experience morality like it is objective. We observe and sense it just like our physical world.

So perhaps now we have some evidence of that our physical world is what it is and not a matrix though I am not sure if there may be other ways our reality can be simulated besides a computer world.
Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows
Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows | Live Science

But nevertheless, someone would have to come up with a similar level of evidence that what we observe and experience with morality being objective is totally unreliable.

Regardless of whether or not you believe that though....your point about objective morality doesn't hold up anyway. We don't actually treat morals as objective.

But our observation such as through our senses and experiences is a valid way to determine whether something is real or not. Observation is a common way to measure things objectively in science.

For starters....we argue in favor of our moral opinions. We don't argue about observable objective facts like 2+2=4. What would be the point? It's easily proven.

We use observation all the time to measure things. The person is observed acting irrationally or displays certain behaviours that can be used to give a scientific diagnosis. Observable evidence with evolution such as the fossil record. Observable evidence in astronomy is common and often relied upon.

Secondly, our morals change over time. People grow up....they gain experience ...they view morals differently.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Relative to situations or subjectively. Do they really change as people grow? Or do some things stay the same? I think things like stealing, rape, child sexual abuse, unjustifiable killing is always wrong. A person may get older and perhaps think that taking someone's stuff is OK because they are poor and need it. But does that really make taking other peoples stuff OK? Or is it just a relative situation that makes the person change and thinks it OK to justify doing it.

Thirdly, moral agreement is superficial. Even if you and I say that something is morally bad....you and I don't necessarily mean te same thing by "bad". We may think it's bad for different reasons...or you may think it's extremely bad while I think it's just a little bad.

Yes that's true, there can be degrees of badness. But I think there is a common intuition or inner knowledge that there is something not right about trying to call something we agree as evil as being good. It just doesn't sit right.

That is why regardless of when people say that this or that is OK to do we all see or hear of some crime and automatically label it as evil. How do we even label it as evil if we believe that there are no objective morals? There would not even be something called evil unless we believed that there was an objective measure that determined it which also includes the opposite of good.

The reality is that no one in the world agrees with completely in regards to morality. It's entirely subject dependent...

I agree that people don't agree with morals but that doesn't say anything about whether there are objective morals.

We treat morals as if they're subjective.

Not really. We react like morals are objective despite claiming they are subjective. A person may claim it is OK to take from others but will react like it is wrong when someone takes from them. They may say there are no ultimate right and wrong but then protest about the evil and injustice in the world. Society may profess subjective morality but then impose morals on people like they are objective disregarding subjective opinions.

The fact that neither you nor anyone else can prove s moral position to be correct seems like a sufficient defeater.

I have addressed this above.

 

[Ken-1122]

So, therefore, subjective measures cannot measure moral values objectively IE measure whether or not your own morals are ultimately right or wrong outside your own view. Therefore you cannot tell that anyone else that their morals are ultimately wrong.

Yes you can! There is nothing preventing you from telling someone else their morals are ultimately wrong

Therefore you cannot tell anyone else that they should not commit that wrong against you because you are then pushing your moral position onto them which is taking an objective position.

Pushing your moral position on them is also a subjective position.

That's true. But what do you mean to behave the same?

Scenario #1 - Jimmy is 100% convinced “X” is wrong. This is a subjective view

Scenario #2 - Jimmy is 100% convinced “X” is wrong, even though “X” is wrong regardless of whether Jimmy realizes it or not. This is the Objective view

In both scenarios Jimmy’s reaction to “X” is the exact same.

That is not how the argument for whether our lived experience of physical reality works when it comes to assessing whether it is true or not. The question is despite being able to tell that you have a tree in your front yard it is whether your experience of that physical situation is not some idea implanted in your head because you are a brain in a jar or live in some matrix that makes you think that you are seeing a tree in your front yard.

Now you are being absurd.

But because there is no contrary evidence that points to us being a brain in a jar or in a matrix we can be justified to believe that the physical reality that we experience is real. It is the same for our lived moral experience. Because we observe that people react and live like there are objective morals we can be justified that our lived moral experience is a true indication of what is happening.

As I pointed out in my previous response of Jimmy’s reaction to “X”, to react and live like there are objective morals is the same as to react and live like there are subjective morals.

 

[stevevw]

Yes you can! There is nothing preventing you from telling someone else their morals are ultimately wrong

On what basis can you claim they are objectively wrong. Why should they take what you say as gospel? It is like telling them that because they like chocolate cake they are wrong. You have no grounding morality to do that. All you can do is agree that you both have different tastes. But that says nothing about morality.

Pushing your moral position on them is also a subjective position.

But you have been saying how pushing morals onto others is an objective position and wrong and that under subjective morality you need to reason out who is right rather than push your morals onto others. IE

Apr 21, 2020#1223 I don’t need objective support, all I need is subjective support I say it's wrong and will provide a convincing argument for why it's wrong. So whose opinion gets enforced??? Wait wait; let me guess…… YOURS! (good luck with that) So why ...

Scenario #1 - Jimmy is 100% convinced “X” is wrong. This is a subjective view

Yes I agree. But what about when Jimmy then pushes his view onto X by condemning their moral position and telling them they are wrong and should be like Jimmy. Happens all the time with those claiming a subjective position. Look at debates on social media where people are condemning, calling people all sorts of names for having a certain moral position as though they have no right to have it. In University where the right to reply is shut down because people think the other person is wrong and everyone should agree with their position only.

Look at the marriage vote and how people attacked anyone for having an opposing view. The ironic thing is you could understand the "No vote" as most were religious and are more inclined to support an objective position. But most of the attacks and condemnation were coming from the "Yes vote" who were more likely to support subjective morality.

Scenario #2 - Jimmy is 100% convinced “X” is wrong, even though “X” is wrong regardless of whether Jimmy realizes it or not. This is the Objective view

In both scenarios Jimmy’s reaction to “X” is the exact same.

The difference is you have changed the scenario. Jimmy is not just convinced x is wrong to himself, he is convinced x should not have their moral position at all and should take on theirs by the fact they condemn x and say he is evil and wrong and should not have that moral position at all. This is actually taking an objective moral position so they are contradicting their subjective moral position.

As I pointed out in my previous response of Jimmy’s reaction to “X”, to react and live like there are objective morals is the same as to react and live like there are subjective morals.

No, it is different because under subjective morality each person's views though different and opposing are no more right or wrong than any person's subjective view because there is no objective reference point to measure if anyone's position is ultimate right. So when a person with a particular subjective moral position claims another is wrong and cannot have that moral position or forces their position on others they are taking an objective position. Happens all the time in society.

Also lived moral experience involves a person claiming a subjective moral position that certain wrongs are OK will react like those certain wrongs are not OK when applied to themselves. So they contradict their own subjective position with an objective position. Something within them has caused them to admit that their subjective view was unreal. Not because of some reasoning from another person that convinces them as the subjectivist claim but by their own conscience which fights against their personal view.

That is the nature of objective morality. It contradicts and fights the justifications and rationalizations of making some evil seem OK. That's because people want to deny the truth so they can live as they wish. But sooner or later they are exposed because the truth is within us all and will come out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The difference is with moral values is that if we used Ice-cream as an example in how someone tells a person who wrongs them that they are morally wrong and should not take that moral position. It would be like someone saying to another person that they should not like the flavour they like and should like the one they prefer. That is like objective morality.

Under subjective morality, they should be treating it similar to likes of ice-cream and be saying to someone who just stole their car. OK, that's fair enough, that's what you subjectively believe, who am I to tell you that this is wrong because that's what you truly believe. So go ahead take my car you are welcome to it.

No offense but this is absurd. Why would I subjectively be ok with someone stealing my car? Just because morals are subjective doesn't mean that I cannot disagree with someone's moral opinion.

You may think that chocolate is better than vanilla....just because taste is subjective doesn't mean I'll agree with you. That's ridiculous.

That's not the point. Even before any evidence we were justified to believe what we experienced through our sense was exactly what we sensed and believed. We had no reason to believe we were in some matrix because there was absolutely no verifiable evidence. So it is the same for our moral experience that people experience morality like it is objective. We observe and sense it just like our physical world.

No....we don't. Just because you believe something is good or bad doesn't make it objectively so.

So perhaps now we have some evidence of that our physical world is what it is and not a matrix though I am not sure if there may be other ways our reality can be simulated besides a computer world.
Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows
Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows | Live Science

I'm guessing you didn't actually read that article.

It's fun to make guesses about the outcomes of theoretical assumptions....but they're just guesses.

But nevertheless, someone would have to come up with a similar level of evidence that what we observe and experience with morality being objective is totally unreliable.

Again....you observe behavior. You decide for yourself whether the behavior was "good" or "bad". You don't actually observe morality...it doesn't exist apart from your subjective judgement.

We use observation all the time to measure things. The person is observed acting irrationally or displays certain behaviours that can be used to give a scientific diagnosis. Observable evidence with evolution such as the fossil record. Observable evidence in astronomy is common and often relied upon.

Again....you observe behavior. You don't actually observe morality.

A person may get older and perhaps think that taking someone's stuff is OK because they are poor and need it. But does that really make taking other peoples stuff OK?

You just said they get older and view taking someone's stuff as ok. If morality was objective...their view of it shouldn't change .

Yes that's true, there can be degrees of badness. But I think there is a common intuition or inner knowledge that there is something not right about trying to call something we agree as evil as being good. It just doesn't sit right.

Again, it's wrong to assume everyone thinks the same way as you do. Suicide bombers aren't running around thinking "this is really bad for me to do"....even if you and I think it is bad.

That is why regardless of when people say that this or that is OK to do we all see or hear of some crime and automatically label it as evil.

We don't.

I agree that people don't agree with morals but that doesn't say anything about whether there are objective morals.

It does if you're assuming that we all agree on what's good and bad.

Not really. We react like morals are objective despite claiming they are subjective. A person may claim it is OK to take from others but will react like it is wrong when someone takes from them.

Which demonstrates the subjective nature of morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok...I'll bite...why is it necessary? Why would a psychologist's personal beliefs about morality matter at all to our discussion of morality?

Seriously, is this a real question? Or are you kidding me with your own particular brand of rhetoric borrowed from nihilists and/or logical positivists? You're more intelligent than that, so please tell me you're joking!

There are some questions that are substantive and should be asked, while other questions seem quite.....how do I say this(?).....out of place when coming from those person who supposedly work within some kind of professional legal or scientific fields. Call me a semantic cynic, but I don't buy that you are actually resorting to the us of this kind of "questioning" ...

In fact, for me to hear this kind of thing from a fellow human being, especially an obviously intelligent and accomplished one like yourself is, shall I say, disturbing to me.

Your "source" is a book title. It's basically useless to our discussion....because I don't know what's in the book.

You can claim it says anything...I have no way of knowing.

Uh, yeah. I've only thus far cited "a book" as a beginning point. What do you expect me to do, Ana, instantly put out a 500,000 word dissertation with some kind of systematic, lock-step rational for demonstrating that we should be able, together, to intuit (rationally) some minimal common moral sensibilities.... in just a matter of minutes? Sheesh!

Do you think that a majority consensus can determine objective morals?

Being that I object to the typical conceptual constructions about what constitutes terms like "objectivity" and "subjectivity," I think trying to assert a proposition in which I assert that a consensus in such a case is somehow the superlative thing to do would be a bit shortsighted and question begging, really. So, the answer is "no," but not for the reasons that so many might assume will be immediately applicable.

I'm not aware of any social ideas inherent in sociopaths. Sociopathy isn't a set of ideas or beliefs.

Again, we're talking about characteristics or personality traits that are stronger or more prominent than in the general population.

For example, impulsivity. We all can be impulsive from time to time. Let's say that on a scale of 1-10...the average person scores between 4-6 on impulsivity. A sociopath however, might score 8-10 on average....displaying more impulsivity than the average person.

That's all it is.

That's ''all" it is? Is it? I'd might beg to differ, although I have an inherent disposition that is highly resistant to begging ...

While the psychological construct that Dr. Martha Stout references is older, being that the book was published in (2005) and draws from the D.S.M. IV rather than V, I think she begins with and uses essentially the same points by which we can begin, points that of course include the characteristic of "impulsivity" that you've brought up, and she in essence says (p. 6) that anti-social personality disorder with is other conducive to a state of sociopathy is characterized by:

"The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder

1. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
   1. Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, such as performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
   2. Deceitfulness, repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for pleasure or personal profit.
   3. Impulsivity or failure to plan.
   4. Irritability and aggressiveness, often with physical fights or assaults.
   5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others.
   6. Consistent irresponsibility, failure to sustain consistent work behavior, or honor monetary obligations.
   7. Lack of remorse, being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.

Reference
Antisocial Personality Disorder - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

So, I'm not going to go along with you statement that sociopathy is simply and only "all" that you say it is, Ana. And I'd start with the fact that we, with the help of psychologists and social scientists, CAN, at minimum, cite some disorders that result in "behaviors" that most of us should be able to cite as socially discruptive, hurtful.........................even wrong, behaviors that are not simply a matter of some individual person's axiological "taste."

Anyway, break time is over. Back to work.

 

[stevevw]

No offense but this is absurd. Why would I subjectively be ok with someone stealing my car?

Because there's no such thing as stealing under subjective morality. It is just a different like or taste and nothing to do with being good or evil because there is no objective ground for morals.

Just because morals are subjective doesn't mean that I cannot disagree with someone's moral opinion.

My point is people do more than just disagree. They act like the other person's moral position is completely wrong. Like they don't have a right to view things that way. As soon as you tell the other person that they are wrong you are taking an objective position.

You may think that chocolate is better than vanilla....just because taste is subjective doesn't mean I'll agree with you. That's ridiculous.

You have misunderstood what I am saying. It is not a case of having to agree with the other person and people do more than just disagree. Apply this moral logic to food likes and dislikes the person who likes chocolate ice-cream should not be saying that the other person is wrong for liking the flavor vanilla because they are making an objective statement. They are saying I am right and you are wrong for liking vanilla.

Because they have no objective reference point to know their position being right they should not apply their view to the other person or every other person. They are actually taking an objective position by applying their position to others. All they can do is say that the other person takes a different position or view or an unfashionable position, and wish them well. When this example is applied to morality it helps explain what I am trying to point out.

What often happens is people go around saying others are wrong and should not take that moral position. Society, different groups professing a subjective position go around saying people must conform to the moral position they have. It happens all the time. The idea of the freedom to express subjective views is an illusion.

No....we don't. Just because you believe something is good or bad doesn't make it objectively so.

As above you are not understanding how lived moral experience really works in society. People have this ideology that morality is subjective and profess there's no true right and wrong and then go around imposing certain rights and wrongs on others everywhere.

Just stop and look at social media, read the comments columns of any media article especially on contentious issues, check out UNi campuses, and how people are platformed by others imposing their positions. Look at the language used such as in community support work such as a sign posted on a community board saying "No one has the right to sexually abuse children". That is implying this is objectively wrong and there is no situation where it can be right. Society uses that language all the time.

I'm guessing you didn't actually read that article.

It's fun to make guesses about the outcomes of theoretical assumptions....but they're just guesses.

They're more than guesses. They have done a lot of research in this area. Besides all, I am saying it is not just that article but a lot of science is dependent on there being alternative realities.

Again....you observe behavior. You decide for yourself whether the behavior was "good" or "bad". You don't actually observe morality...it doesn't exist apart from your subjective judgment.

Again....you observe behavior. You don't actually observe morality.

It is not just about observing good or bad behavior. It is observing how people react which may not be an action per se but an outward cue of what they believe internally. It may be observing language verbally and written. It is especially telling when people contradict themselves as this shows that it is common and easy for people to profess positions that they don't really believe. But it is the fact that the opposing position makes things interesting as this is a reflection of something beyond their control and therefore more telling of something people are ingrained with.

You just said they get older and view taking someone's stuff as ok. If morality was objective...their view of it shouldn't change.

Why would that be the case? I am not denying subjective morality. I am saying that there are both. What may be commonly agreed can be objective morality. In fact, any explanation of how commonly agreed morals are evolutionary is insufficient for explaining why people morally do what they do.

And that's not accounting for people rejecting objective morality and acting immoral pr being indoctrinated when they change. It is wrong to think that objective morality means rigidly adhering to that regime and not being affected by other influences. The thing is people know good and evil. Then there is relative situations that people mistake as changing objective morality.

Again, it's wrong to assume everyone thinks the same way as you do. Suicide bombers aren't running around thinking "this is really bad for me to do"....even if you and I think it is bad.

I don't, you have assumed that.

 

[Moral Orel]

"The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder

1. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
   1. Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, such as performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
   2. Deceitfulness, repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for pleasure or personal profit.
   3. Impulsivity or failure to plan.
   4. Irritability and aggressiveness, often with physical fights or assaults.
   5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others.
   6. Consistent irresponsibility, failure to sustain consistent work behavior, or honor monetary obligations.
   7. Lack of remorse, being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.

Reference
Antisocial Personality Disorder - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

Yeesh! I've exhibited all of these things to some degree. Not a lot (I think) but some. Should I be worried?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeesh! I've exhibited all of these things to some degree. Not a lot (I think) but some. Should I be worried?

.............no, because you've already identified yourself as "Moral Orel." So, it kind of goes without saying at this point that we can all be safe if you invite any one of us over for dinner.

 

[Kaon]

Morals come from humans, not gods. The purpose is subtle control in the way that keeps other humans from killing each other, stealing and ultimately ignoring any form of government or authority.

It has been refined and intertwined into anthropological "civilization" - which is why most people think morals can possibly be s
objective. They cant; morals are categorically human constructs, and are for mortal entities: it is a set of "proper customs", not spiritual or universal law. these customs are meant to keep humanity alive - similar to how religion was to teach the ignorant how not to steal or murder...

 

[Moral Orel]

.............no, because you've already identified yourself as "Moral Orel." So, it kind of goes without saying at this point that we can all be safe if you invite any one of us over for dinner.

But Moral Orel isn't my real name, so it's just another exhibition of #2 (use of aliases). Duhn duhn DUHN!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But Moral Orel isn't my real name, so it's just another exhibition of #2 (use of aliases). Duhn duhn DUHN!

That makes two of us. Morel Orel isn't my real name ... either.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Seriously, is this a real question? Or are you kidding me with your own particular brand of rhetoric borrowed from nihilists and/or logical positivists? You're more intelligent than that, so please tell me you're joking!

Not joking.

There are some questions that are substantive and should be asked, while other questions seem quite.....how do I say this(?).....out of place when coming from those person who supposedly work within some kind of professional legal or scientific fields. Call me a semantic cynic, but I don't buy that you are actually resorting to the us of this kind of "questioning" ...

It's a serious question...

In fact, for me to hear this kind of thing from a fellow human being, especially an obviously intelligent and accomplished one like yourself is, shall I say, disturbing to me.

Whenever someone spends multiple paragraphs acting incredulous instead of just answering the question they pretend is easily answered....

The obvious reason is they don't have an answer.

You don't have an answer, do you?

Uh, yeah. I've only thus far cited "a book" as a beginning point. What do you expect me to do, Ana, instantly put out a 500,000 word dissertation with some kind of systematic, lock-step rational for demonstrating that we should be able, together, to intuit (rationally) some minimal common moral sensibilities.... in just a matter of minutes? Sheesh!

I expected you to link sources that were readable. Again, I can't do anything with a book title.

Being that I object to the typical conceptual constructions about what constitutes terms like "objectivity" and "subjectivity," I think trying to assert a proposition in which I assert that a consensus in such a case is somehow the superlative thing to do would be a bit shortsighted and question begging, really. So, the answer is "no," but not for the reasons that so many might assume will be immediately applicable.

No? Can you explain what the point was when you said this then?

My point is, there are some actions that a majority of people can readily recognize as egregious, immoral actions that should not be accepted for very long, if at all---something like the Nazi Blitzkrieg ( of Poland) being one of them, for example.

That's ''all" it is? Is it? I'd might beg to differ, although I have an inherent disposition that is highly resistant to begging ...

While the psychological construct that Dr. Martha Stout references is older, being that the book was published in (2005) and draws from the D.S.M. IV rather than V, I think she begins with and uses essentially the same points by which we can begin, points that of course include the characteristic of "impulsivity" that you've brought up, and she in essence says (p. 6) that anti-social personality disorder with is other conducive to a state of sociopathy is characterized by:

"The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder

1. A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
   1. Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, such as performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
   2. Deceitfulness, repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for pleasure or personal profit.
   3. Impulsivity or failure to plan.
   4. Irritability and aggressiveness, often with physical fights or assaults.
   5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others.
   6. Consistent irresponsibility, failure to sustain consistent work behavior, or honor monetary obligations.
   7. Lack of remorse, being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.

Reference
Antisocial Personality Disorder - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

I say that sociopathy is a cluster of personality traits...I give one as an example....

You reply by listing the other characteristics/traits.

It's probably worth pointing out that antisocial personality disorder can refer to a lot of conditions...not just sociopathy or psychopathy.

So, I'm not going to go along with you statement that sociopathy is simply and only "all" that you say it is, Ana. And I'd start with the fact that we, with the help of psychologists and social scientists, CAN, at minimum, cite some disorders that result in "behaviors"

They can result in certain problematic behaviors....that's not a given though.

that most of us should be able to cite as socially discruptive, hurtful.........................even wrong, behaviors that are not simply a matter of some individual person's axiological "taste."

Anyway, break time is over. Back to work.

If someone is impulsive....and they impulsively decide to engage in some behavior, it's possible that the decision to engage in that behavior is a result of some moral position....it's also possible that it was a result of something else, like drug addiction.

I'm sure there's some point following all this...so why don't you just skip ahead to whatever it is? I don't see what any of this has to do with the topic of subjective/objective morality....and the fact that you haven't explained the connection makes me think that perhaps you're off on some irrelevant tangent.