Is there Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

Sure people can change their moral values after thinking about things. But I am talking about a reaction to a moral situation where the person has no time to think about things. They are caught out and their reaction is usually how they really feel about morality.

So they claim subjective morality but act/react like the specific moral situations are objectively wrong.

Just like how you react as though some food is objectively tasty when you have no time to think about things. My analogy continues to win.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You're assuming optimality is subject to us.

I'm arguing the opposite: neither the effectiveness nor the optimality of any set of codes of conduct, are subject to us nor can they be.

Well, this weakens your original conclusion considerably

C: there must exist a set of possible codes of conduct which could serve as optimal solutions to real moral problems, and because they are defined by an objective reality, the set can be described as an "objective morality."

In fact, there are many different codes of conduct that will optimize many different objective schema. There is no unique one.

 

[o_mlly]

In some places abortions are illegal. In others, they are legal. It doesn't appear that these laws ground themselves in any objective moral facts.

I don't think abortion is an example of subjective morality. Those who allow abortions usually first deny the life that the act kills is a human life. Do you have examples of anyone who allows that abortion is a moral act and agree that the life taken is human?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't think abortion is an example of subjective morality.

It's not about anything being an 'example' of subjective morality. The question in the OP is whether the nature of moral statements are objective or subjective. Are they objective facts, independent of human beings? Or are they not?

That said, aborted fetuses aren't salamanders or ferns. Of course they are human.

 

[TheWhat?]

Well, this weakens your original conclusion considerably

C: there must exist a set of possible codes of conduct which could serve as optimal solutions to real moral problems, and because they are defined by an objective reality, the set can be described as an "objective morality."

In fact, there are many different codes of conduct that will optimize many different objective schema. There is no unique one.

I disagree that it weakens my position. In fact I argued the opposite as in my response to Ken:

Who said optimal = uniform? I assumed nothing of the sort.

Reality dictates that slower speeds are closer to optimal for roads in residential zones while faster speeds are more optimal for freeways. Or, the codes of conduct for flood plain farmers may differ drastically to nomadic herdsmen. Optimality as dictated by reality requires what it will, and that doesn't render anything that is defined and exists objectively to be subjective in the slightest.

It strengthens my position: if optimality required uniformity, it could not be optimal in cases such as the history of conflict between farmers and ranchers in the U.S. A diversity of solutions is required by reality itself.

On the other hand, that some codes of conduct may be universal may also be the case, but it's not for us to decide what is optimal.

Arguably, this is neoplatonic thought at work. There does appear to me to be something like a "world of forms" which we are necessarily speaking about when attempting to describe an objective morality, "forms" being interpreted as optimal solutions to moral problems. Plato, also, can be taken as articulating proto-evolutionary thought, concepts of evolution being something not unknown to the Greeks prior to Plato.

 

[o_mlly]

The question in the OP is whether the nature of moral statements are objective or subjective. Are they objective facts, independent of human beings? Or are they not?

That said, aborted fetuses aren't salamanders or ferns. Of course they are human.

?
What do you mean when you write "objective moral facts"?

In some places abortions are illegal. In others, they are legal. It doesn't appear that these laws ground themselves in any objective moral facts.

So, do you agree that the humanity of the pre-born is an objective moral fact? And, therefore, that abortion is murder?

If so then can you list, as requested, any location that allows abortions and agrees the aborted being is a human being? I don't think you can.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I disagree that it weakens my position. In fact I argued the opposite as in my response to Ken:
...
Reality dictates that slower speeds are closer to optimal for roads in residential zones while faster speeds are more optimal for freeways.

But this implicitly presupposes some values that determine this optimum. If time to destination were the only factor, then faster speeds are always better. If avoiding pedestrian deaths were the only factor, then speeds would be limited to 5 mph.

In fact both values are in play. For there to be some sort of optimal and objective moral law, there must be some objective number of pedestrian deaths per hundred miles travelled that is morally optimal when weighed against efficiency of transportation. The idea that this value of deaths/transportation mile is somehow an objective feature of the universe seems absurd.

Add to this the fact that you think that we don't need to define what 'effectiveness' is and we're left with a dubious objective measure that we don't even know what it is. This is not a useful guide for morality even if it existed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

?
What do you mean when you write "objective moral facts"?

Objective: Factual. Independent of personal judgments.

Moral statements are inherently subjective. Things like rape and murder engage our strong feelings precisely because they are subjective. They don't matter to the universe; they matter to us. To subjects experiencing them. To people. They are not statements about how the universe factually is; they are statements about how we feel about these situations.

So, do you agree that the humanity of the pre-born is an objective moral fact?

Well, a human embryo or fetus is human as an objective fact. It's not a moral fact.

And, therefore, that abortion is murder?

No. Your blood cells are human, but arranging for a few of them to leak out of you and die isn't murder.

Murder is the illegal killing of a person. Personhood does not have an objective definition. But it does have a legal one.

 

[TheWhat?]

But this implicitly presupposes some values that determine this optimum. If time to destination were the only factor, then faster speeds are always better. If avoiding pedestrian deaths were the only factor, then speeds would be limited to 5 mph.

In fact both values are in play. For there to be some sort of optimal and objective moral law, there must be some objective number of pedestrian deaths per hundred miles travelled that is morally optimal when weighed against efficiency of transportation. The idea that this value of deaths/transportation mile is somehow an objective feature of the universe seems absurd.

That's not how I would conceptualize the situation. It does seem to be a ridiculous idea that reality is somehow keeping score. It's not a ridiculous idea that it's part of our nature to value human life, and that we were formed this way by an objective reality, because it serves a real and tangible benefit for us. If a community of pirates adopts a morality that conveniently allows them to take innocent lives for the bounty, reality can very well dictate that that community has a higher chance of falling into disorder wherein its members begin taking each other's lives for the bounty.

Add to this the fact that you think that we don't need to define what 'effectiveness' is and we're left with a dubious objective measure that we don't even know what it is. This is not a useful guide for morality even if it existed.

Objective things simply are. I did not say this is intended to be a guidebook. The question at hand is about whether or not objective morality exists. I do not even think it's directly accessible to us -- see my post #439.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I do not even think it's directly accessible to us -- see my post #439.

I believe this is the possibility I allowed for at the end of #12:

At best, as Quid suggests, if there were some sort of Platonic objective morality out there floating in Platospace -- we have no way of gaining any access to it.

 

[Belk]

There need not be a scoring system. Only effectiveness, or fitness, depending on how you want to look at the formation of effective systems over time. We don't even need to define what effectiveness is if reality itself dictates the optimality of solutions to real problems.



Your counterpoints are presupposing that we must be responsible for performing some kind of moral calculus to determine what is optimal. This is not part of my argument.

There may indeed be an optimum configuration for behavior. That, however, does not make morality objective.

Just as there may be a hypothetical optimum configuration for a car. That does not make my choice of vehicle objective.

 

[o_mlly]

No. Your blood cells are human, but arranging for a few of them to leak out of you and die isn't murder.

Good. So those who permit abortion do not consider the act to be murder. The abortion permit is grounded in the (erroneously) presumed fact that the pre-born to be no more than an irritant such as a polyp and its removal is at the option of the mother. In their minds, abortion is an amoral act.

As such, appealing to abortion as evidence of subjective morality does not apply.

Moral statements are inherently subjective. Things like rape and murder engage our strong feelings precisely because they are subjective. They don't matter to the universe; they matter to us.

? Are we not part of the universe?

• All empirical science is based on observation.
  
• Observations require an observer.
  
• An observer has a particular perspective.
  
• Perception is in the mind of the observer, ie., subjective.
  
• All empirical science is subjective.

 

[durangodawood]

..."People should not murder." is not an objective truth.
But "I think people should not murder." can be, if the utterer is sincere......

How about:
-People should not murder if they value living in a stable society.
-Its an objective fact that human beings typically value living in a stable society.

 

[durangodawood]

.... Are we not part of the universe?....

Right.

There are objective facts about the nature of the human species, including behavioral traits, just like any other species.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As such, appealing to abortion as evidence of subjective morality does not apply.

That's not what I was doing.

? Are we not part of the universe?

Oi. Look we can study atoms and discover that certain quantum transitions are forbidden. (Because they violate conservation of conserved properties.) We can study humans and find that some of them murder people and some of them don't. But these objective statements about people's behavior don't lead ineluctably to any oughts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How about:
-People should not murder if they value living in a stable society.
-Its an objective fact that human beings typically value living in a stable society.

Certainly 'People should not murder' is a very popular opinion among people, and with good reason. But popularity (or even unanimity) doesn't make things into objective facts (except as a statement about people's opinions).

 

[durangodawood]

Certainly 'People should not murder' is a very popular opinion among people, and with good reason. But popularity (or even unanimity) doesn't make things into objective facts (except as a statement about people's opinions).

But where is the subjective in the way I formulated it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But where is the subjective in the way I formulated it?

human beings typically value living in a stable society

This is a value that people place on things. It is not some sort of inherent objective value. Gold is only valuable because people value it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

human beings typically value living in a stable society

This is a value that people place on things. It is not some sort of inherent objective value. Gold is only valuable because people value it.

Indeed. I should think the use of the word typical implies occurrences of the atypical that in and of itself implies subjectivity.

 

[TheWhat?]

There may indeed be an optimum configuration for behavior. That, however, does not make morality objective.

Just as there may be a hypothetical optimum configuration for a car. That does not make my choice of vehicle objective.

"Morality is objective" and "there exists an objective morality" are two entirely different statements.