Is there Objective Morality?

[zippy2006]

Sub topic - Objectivity and Argument

In the thread, "Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?," a number of atheists remonstrated Abaxvahl when he claimed that there are some forms of slavery that are not intrinsically evil. Their implication was that all forms of slavery are intrinsically evil, and that Abaxvahl should agree with them. Oddly enough, nearly all of these atheists have also cast their vote, saying that there is no objective morality. This means that they apparently do not believe that slavery is objectively evil.

(@Occams Barber, @Kylie, @Bradskii, @Ken-1122, @Larnievc)

So @Moral Orel and I got into a discussion over whether things that you argue about must be thought to be objective. In other words: Is it possible to argue about purely subjective things? If you don't think morality is objective, can you get upset with slaveholders and claim that they have done something objectively wrong?

(I wanted to resituate the discussion in this thread where it is on-topic. I may not participate fully in the conversation due to time limitations.)

 

[Bradskii]

Well, if a morality is based on survival then things which increase survivability are moral, and objectively so. "What we do" is survive, and you have claimed that protocols which outline how we should act in order to survive are "termed morality":

I didn't say that morality was based on survival. I said that the characteristics that evolved to allow us to form societies are ones that obviously worked. And we therefore, not unsurprisingly, refer to them as 'good'. Which can lead to decisions regarding moral actions.

Leaving grandma out in the snow used to be a means to increase the chances of survival of a group but it's not relevant now. Don't take this proposal and apply it across the board to all moral decisions. It won't work.

 

[Moral Orel]

Is it possible to argue about purely subjective things?

Yes. Fallacious arguments are still arguments. Invalid arguments are still arguments.

If you don't think morality is objective, can you get upset with slaveholders?

Yes.

If you don't think morality is objective, can you...claim that they have done something objectively wrong?

No.

Putting all that into one question implies that your answer would be the same for both, but that's silly.

Getting upset isn't the same as claiming that something is objectively wrong. I think you're going down the same track I've seen Steve use a lot. So I'm going to give you a challenge. Pick something that you think tastes terrible, eat it, and then be totally okay with that. We all agree that flavor liking is a subjective thing, so you "should" be able to eat anything and not have a problem with it... Right?

 

[zippy2006]

I didn't say that morality was based on survival.

Yes you did. You said so in post #605. I quoted you saying it twice, both in post #644 and #679. I don't feel inclined to quote it for a third time.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes. Fallacious arguments are still arguments. Invalid arguments are still arguments.

Yes.

No.

Putting all that into one question implies that your answer would be the same for both, but that's silly.

See post #680, which follows on post #251 in the other thread. We've already covered this point.

Getting upset isn't the same as claiming that something is objectively wrong.

I agree.

I think you're going down the same track I've seen Steve use a lot. So I'm going to give you a challenge. Pick something that you think tastes terrible, eat it, and then be totally okay with that. We all agree that flavor liking is a subjective thing, so you "should" be able to eat anything and not have a problem with it... Right?

Who is Steve?

Being upset on account of another person's opinion and being upset on account of a taste in your mouth are two different things. Nevertheless, I don't follow your argument. Because I dislike certain tastes it is therefore possible to argue about subjective things...?

 

[Ken-1122]

In the thread, "Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?," a number of atheists remonstrated Abaxvahl when he claimed that there are some forms of slavery that are not intrinsically evil. Their implication was that all forms of slavery are intrinsically evil, and that Abaxvahl should agree with them.

Is slavery evil if the person becomes a slave via his own freewill as in the example of the bible story of Jacob enslaving himself for 7 years to get his wife?

Oddly enough, nearly all of these atheists have also cast their vote, saying that there is no objective morality. This means that they apparently do not believe that slavery is objectively evil.

That’s because it’s subjectively evil.

Is it possible to argue about purely subjective things?

I would say 99.9% of of all things argued over are purely subjective things.

If you don't think morality is objective, can you get upset with slaveholders and claim that they have done something objectively wrong?

You can get upset with them and claim they have done something subjectively wrong.

 

[zippy2006]

That’s because it’s subjectively evil.

I would say 99.9% of of all things argued over are purely subjective things.

You can get upset with them and claim they have done something subjectively wrong.

So if it is "subjectively wrong" for you to do it, and for me to do it, and for Abaxvahl to do it, aren't you most likely working under the assumption that it' is objectively wrong? Or else: if it is not objectively wrong, then why would it be "subjectively wrong" for me to do it? How can you claim that someone has done something wrong if there is nothing that is objectively right or wrong?

 

[Moral Orel]

I have. I was responding from a cell phone, so I didn't write a long response.

I went back and read all the exchanges leading up to this one. Maybe you feel it was implied by one of your responses.

You can use purposely fallacious reasoning to trick someone into believing an invalid argument. What you can't do is believe that your argument is rational. My claims were made under the assumption that people don't argue in a purposely fallacious way. It would seem that that is not what argument is. That's more like propaganda than argument.

A or B
Not A
B

That's an argument, right? That's a valid argument too, correct? Now imagine "Not A" is false. Now it's a valid argument, but it's not a sound argument, right? Just because it doesn't work logically doesn't make it not an argument.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes you did. You said so in post #605. I quoted you saying it twice, both in post #644 and #679. I don't feel inclined to quote it for a third time.

OK, the tense is confusing. Like saying 'I said that Dark Side of The Moon was the greatest album' not meaning 'used to be the greatest album' but 'is the greatest album'. So allow me to rephrase that:

'I didn't say that morality is based on survival.'

And I think it's clear from what I said earlier that it's my position that what enabled us to survive is obviously good, so we have termed that which helped us survive as good and morality has developed from that. And we have developed protocols which we term morality. You can't map morality directly onto survivability.

From the previous post:

'Morality is a means to an end. It has evolved as we have evolved. We have gained an ability for self reflection and a sense of empathy with others (not conscience with which it is often confused) and we have then developed protocols by which we have used to live together and survive (got to pass them genes on!). Those protocols we have termed morality. That is, how we should act (in order to survive).

Morality is a function of our evolutionary development.'

So don't take it as a rule that 'If it aids survival it is morally good'. Notwithstanding that most of this needs to be discussed in the past tense as it happened in our evolutionary past. And some things that were good for survival certainly wouldn't be classed as morally good now (back to dear old grandma).

 

[Moral Orel]

OK, the tense is confusing. Like saying 'I said that Dark Side of The Moon was the greatest album' not meaning 'used to be the greatest album' but 'is the greatest album'. So allow me to rephrase that:

'I didn't say that morality is based on survival.'

And I think it's clear from what I said earlier that it's my position that what enabled us to survive is obviously good, so we have termed that which helped us survive as good and morality has developed from that. And we have developed protocols which we term morality. You can't map morality directly onto survivability.

From the previous post:

'Morality is a means to an end. It has evolved as we have evolved. We have gained an ability for self reflection and a sense of empathy with others (not conscience with which it is often confused) and we have then developed protocols by which we have used to live together and survive (got to pass them genes on!). Those protocols we have termed morality. That is, how we should act (in order to survive).

Morality is a function of our evolutionary development.'

So don't take it as a rule that 'If it aids survival it is morally good'. Notwithstanding that most of this needs to be discussed in the past tense as it happened in our evolutionary past. And some things that were good for survival certainly wouldn't be classed as morally good now (back to dear old grandma).

Golly! You're so close to stumbling onto actual subjective morality. Think for a moment on what the mechanism is that evolved in us to motivate us towards doing things that promote survival, and reasoning about how to act has exploited that mechanism today.

Here's a hint. Why do we have sex? We're more likely to do the deed because folks who were more likely to do it, did it, and passed on their genes. But what's missing in the middle of that explanation? What is it about the folks who were more likely to do it?

 

[Ken-1122]

So if it is "subjectively wrong" for you to do it, and for me to do it, and for Abaxvahl to do it, aren't you most likely working under the assumption that it' is objectively wrong?

No. It’s subjectively wrong because I believe it is always wrong, and never right.

Or else: if it is not objectively wrong, then why would it be "subjectively wrong" for me to do it?

To be objectively wrong, you have to be able to demonstrate that is wrong. This is impossible. If you disagree, provide a scenario of an evil act, and provide absolute objective proof that the act is immoral.

How can you claim that someone has done something wrong if there is nothing that is objectively right or wrong?

As I pointed out (to someone else) before, you appear to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says (for example) rape is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

 

[zippy2006]

I went back and read all the exchanges leading up to this one. Maybe you feel it was implied by one of your responses.

I am like most people when it comes to arguing about movies. I have done it in limited ways.

A or B
Not A
B

That's an argument, right?

Yes.

That's a valid argument too, correct?

Yes.

Now imagine "Not A" is false. Now it's a valid argument, but it's not a sound argument, right?

Right.

Just because it doesn't work logically doesn't make it not an argument.

I would say that if you know it is unsound then you are tricking them like I said in #680, and that's not an argument per se. If you falsely believe it to be sound then it is an argument.

P1: A or B
P2: Not A
C3: Therefore, B​

In the first case you are trying to make someone believe a falsehood, namely that C3 follows from P1 and P2, and this is a form of lying. In the second case you are arguing that the conclusion follows from the premises, and this is what an argument is.

But my original claim was that, "If you don't think the claim you are making is true and accessible to your interlocutor, then you shouldn't be arguing about it with him." Your counterargument claims that you can *speak* with someone in such a way so as to attempt to make him believe something on the basis of intentionally unsound reasoning.

Now you would call that *speaking* argument, and I wouldn't, but I agree that you can do that kind of speaking. By "argue" I basically mean, "to prove or try to prove by giving reasons" (Merriam-Webster). That's what the term "arguing" means in my original claim.

You are talking about people who just want Abaxvahl to believe something, even though they don't think that thing is (objectively) true. In that case when Kylie objects to Abaxvahl's position on slavery she objects merely because Abaxvahl believes something that she doesn't want him to believe, not because he believes something false. I highly doubt that Kylie (or anyone else) was doing that.

 

[zippy2006]

No. It’s subjectively wrong because I believe it is always wrong, and never right.

When someone says something is subjectively wrong they usually mean that it is wrong for them to do, but that if someone else did it that person would not necessarily be doing anything wrong. The prohibition applies only to the subject who holds it.

To be objectively wrong, you have to be able to demonstrate that is wrong. This is impossible.

If you cannot demonstrate that it is wrong then why should anyone else believe it is wrong, and why should anyone else avoid doing it? How could you hold that something is wrong for other people to do, even though they have no way of knowing that it is wrong?

As I pointed out (to someone else) before, you appear to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says (for example) rape is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

If you want to look at terms I think my usage is more accurate than yours, but feel free to quote sources to support your usage. If not, that's okay, for we are not obliged to align our terms with common usage.

 

[zippy2006]

OK, the tense is confusing. Like saying 'I said that Dark Side of The Moon was the greatest album' not meaning 'used to be the greatest album' but 'is the greatest album'. So allow me to rephrase that:

'I didn't say that morality is based on survival.'

And I think it's clear from what I said earlier that it's my position that what enabled us to survive is obviously good, so we have termed that which helped us survive as good and morality has developed from that. And we have developed protocols which we term morality. You can't map morality directly onto survivability.

From the previous post:

'Morality is a means to an end. It has evolved as we have evolved. We have gained an ability for self reflection and a sense of empathy with others (not conscience with which it is often confused) and we have then developed protocols by which we have used to live together and survive (got to pass them genes on!). Those protocols we have termed morality. That is, how we should act (in order to survive).

Morality is a function of our evolutionary development.'

So don't take it as a rule that 'If it aids survival it is morally good'. Notwithstanding that most of this needs to be discussed in the past tense as it happened in our evolutionary past. And some things that were good for survival certainly wouldn't be classed as morally good now (back to dear old grandma).

So you are saying that once upon a time morality was directly based on survival, but now it is only loosely based on survival? And since it is now only loosely based on survival, it is no longer objective because it is sort of wishy washy?

 

[Kylie]

Back to the “Flat Earthers”?

Using the same logic would conclude that there can be no objective scientific claims or any objective claims at all. Only a universal consensus could justify a claim as objective. We exist perpetually in the realm of doubt.

And I think you'll find that you're not far off the truth.

Science does not claim, "We have proven such-and-such to be objective fact." This page gives a much better explanation than I could: There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

 

[Bradskii]

Golly! You're so close to stumbling onto actual subjective morality. Think for a moment on what the mechanism is that evolved in us to motivate us towards doing things that promote survival, and reasoning about how to act has exploited that mechanism today.

Here's a hint. Why do we have sex? We're more likely to do the deed because folks who were more likely to do it, did it, and passed on their genes. But what's missing in the middle of that explanation? What is it about the folks who were more likely to do it?

I'm not sure the question makes sense. It's like asking what happened to the people who were more likely to breathe in and out.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not sure the question makes sense. It's like asking what happened to the people who were more likely to breathe in and out.

Oh, that question makes sense, and here's the answer: they survived more often than those who were less likely to breathe.

 

[Kylie]

No, "repulsive" does not suggest taste - Do magnets set pole to pole feel like repelling each other?

The correct quote from your post is not merely "One of" but "One of the most ..." which means that this act is on your short list of immoral acts.

If a word has two definitions, you can't use the second definition to show that the first one is wrong.

Deflection, deflection, and more deflection ... can we get back to the argument that "non-spousal" rape is objectively immoral? If you disagree then give us the rationale indicating the circumstances that rape is a moral act.

My argument is not about whether it is moral or immoral. I think I have made it clear that I believe rape of any kind to be utterly reprehensible. The argument is about whether it is OBJECTIVELY so.

And, let me point out, I never made any argument at all to say that spousal rape is anything but immoral. I merely pointed out that there are some people who do not view it as immoral. The fact I recognise that there are people with such views does not mean that I agree with such views.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am like most people when it comes to arguing about movies. I have done it in limited ways.

Don't you mean "speaking" about movies?

I would say that if you know it is unsound then you are tricking them like I said in #680, and that's not an argument per se. If you falsely believe it to be sound then it is an argument.

P1: A or B
P2: Not A
C3: Therefore, B
In the first case you are trying to make someone believe a falsehood, namely that C3 follows from P1 and P2, and this is a form of lying. In the second case you are arguing that the conclusion follows from the premises, and this is what an argument is.

But my original claim was that, "If you don't think the claim you are making is true and accessible to your interlocutor, then you shouldn't be arguing about it with him." Your counterargument claims that you can *speak* with someone in such a way so as to attempt to make him believe something on the basis of intentionally unsound reasoning.

Now you would call that *speaking* argument, and I wouldn't, but I agree that you can do that kind of speaking. By "argue" I basically mean, "to prove or try to prove by giving reasons" (Merriam-Webster). That's what the term "arguing" means in my original claim.

We still call fallacies "arguments". Argument from emotion, argument from popularity, argument from false authority. Arguments try to convince, even if it isn't real proof. That's why you used the word "argument" at the beginning of this post, but you couldn't possibly have meant it then the same way as you're trying to use the definition now. Think about inductive reasoning. You're trying to prove that one thing is more likely than another thing so that people believe the likely thing.

Arguing is about persuasion, not proof. Naively, people think proof is persuasive.

You are talking about people who just want Abaxvahl to believe something, even though they don't think that thing is (objectively) true. In that case when Kylie objects to Abaxvahl's position on slavery she objects merely because Abaxvahl believes something that she doesn't want him to believe, not because he believes something false. I highly doubt that Kylie (or anyone else) was doing that.

Folks want other folks to feel the same way they do. You can use some objective facts to affect an emotional change in people.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not sure the question makes sense. It's like asking what happened to the people who were more likely to breathe in and out.

Doing the deed ain't an involuntary action. Those things aren't analogous at all. Why do people do it? C'mon man, you know this!