Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

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.)

Yes, it is possible to argue over things that are purely subjective. How many times have we seen arguments about whether pineapple should be put on pizza?

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, it is possible to argue over things that are purely subjective. How many times have we seen arguments about whether pineapple should be put on pizza?

I realize there is a precritical assumption that anything related to food or taste is subjective, but this is somewhat odd in a culture full of cooking shows that literally assess the quality of the food that various chefs prepare, and then reward or punish contestants based on their dishes.

Assumption not granted.

 

[zippy2006]

Don't you mean "speaking" about movies?

We can come back to this if you want.

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.

When I give an argument I try to convince an interlocutor that my argument is sound. I don't try to make them believe that something is true on the basis of unsound reasoning. The modern term for that is propaganda, and propaganda is not argument.

Again, my distinction pivots on intention, so it doesn't matter whether a syllogism is a fallacy, it only matters whether the person who proffers the syllogism believes it is a fallacy.

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

Sure, but we would never call that an argument. Trying to impact another's affect/emotion without the intervention of sound reasoning is not argument.

But I clarified what I mean by "argue," and that meaning applies to the term in the argument I gave. We don't need to precisely determine the colloquial meaning of "argue" to assess my argument. I've provided the meaning of the term.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

I disagree! First of all, nobody says something is subjectively wrong or objectively wrong, they just say it’s wrong. The objectivity/subjectively only becomes an issue in discussions like this where only scenarios of right/wrong take place. When someone claims something to be wrong, that claim comes from the mind; and can be denied by anything with a mind; humans, dogs, lions, etc. That makes it subjective. The claim that there is a big tree on my front lawn is not something that comes from my mind, so it can’t be denied with anything with a mind; humans, dogs, lions, etc will agree with this objective claim. That which is objective (like the tree in my lawn) can be demonstrated as true to all sentient beings (humans, dogs, lions, etc). That which is subjective (like action X is wrong) is subjective and can be denied by all sentient beings.

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?

That’s where the discussion comes in. You use arguments like empathy, fairness, or kindness to make your point. However if the person is a nihilist, you might not have much luck convincing him.

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.

Below are a couple of links that confirms my claim of the differences between that which is objective vs that which is subjective.
Difference between Objective and Subjective | Objective vs Subjective Comparison
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

 

[Bradskii]

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?

No. Not directly.

For the third or fouth time...what we term as good and bad was, in some circumstances such as stealing or sharing food, advantageous for survival. So that's the reason they became what we term good and bad. And morality is based on the concept of good and bad. We've thought about it, come to realise what works - what is good, so we have consciously devised a morality based on that.

Not everything that aids survival (which is 'good') has any connection with morality. Avoiding something wriggling in the grass is good but has no bearing on morality. And back to grannie, leaving her in the snow (to aid survival) might have been considered amoral at best if the concept had been developed, but is now immoral because of changing circumstances.

And it's as objective as a coin toss. It's a roll of the genetic dice. You might as well say that having good eyesight is objectively good from a moral perspective.

 

[Bradskii]

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!

It's as voluntary as eating. You can decide when to do it (and maybe with whom) but it's not like back in the evolutionary past one had a choice. I'm not sure where you're going with this..

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure, but we would never call that an argument. Trying to impact another's affect/emotion without the intervention of sound reasoning is not argument.

But there is sound reasoning going on. So let's say that I hate slavery, and you think it's objectively good. But we both hate human suffering. So I give sound reasoning why slavery promotes human suffering to convince you to hate slavery too. That's what's going on. There is that one last subjective leap at the end where the association between human suffering and slavery is formed, but there's still plenty of sound reasoning.

Yes, yes, I know those aren't either of our positions, really.

 

[Will Joseph]

Why do we have sex?

I wish the answer here was simple. But people have had sex for so many stupid reasons. I wish people only had sex for producing kids, but that's just not how it is, sadly.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's as voluntary as eating. You can decide when to do it (and maybe with whom) but it's not like back in the evolutionary past one had a choice. I'm not sure where you're going with this..

Why do we want to do it? It isn't a trick question.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

This is such a common claim made by Christians (or those who claim moral descisions are objective). So the usual response to a statement such as 'That rape is wrong is not objective' is as you have just posted. Effectively 'Oh, so it's wrong for you but if someone else claims it's ok you have no argument'. Which is nonsense.

I think rape is wrong for anyone. At all times. That doesn't make my subjective belief an objective one.

 

[Bradskii]

I wish the answer here was simple. But people have had sex for so many stupid reasons. I wish people only had sex for producing kids, but that's just not how it is anymore, sadly.

I'd blame the designer.

 

[Bradskii]

Why do we want to do it? It isn't a trick question.

It feels great.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, it is possible to argue over things that are purely subjective. How many times have we seen arguments about whether pineapple should be put on pizza?

Maybe I've been wrong all along about this subject. Because that is objectively bad.

 

[Kylie]

I realize there is a precritical assumption that anything related to food or taste is subjective, but this is somewhat odd in a culture full of cooking shows that literally assess the quality of the food that various chefs prepare, and then reward or punish contestants based on their dishes.

Assumption not granted.

There is, to a degree, a certain amount of objectivity. Are the ingredients fresh? Have they been prepared in a way that doesn't burn the food? Has the food been prepared with care, or was everything just slopped on the plate? But for things like whether a person likes the taste or not, or whether they find the presentation aesthetically pleasing, that is indeed subjective and purely a taste matter.

 

[zippy2006]

Effectively 'Oh, so it's wrong for you but if someone else claims it's ok you have no argument'. Which is nonsense.

If you have an argument that shows rape to be wrong then it wouldn't be merely subjective, would it?

 

[Moral Orel]

It feels great.

Doin it is good because it feels great. That's subjective morality. We don't say things are good because we evolved to do them. We evolved to like certain things and we call them good because we like them. We like doin' it, we like eating. When we started becoming social creatures and evolved empathy, we didn't like seeing others starve and we did like seeing starving people fed, so we call those bad and good, respectively. It's all just likes and dislikes, the same as flavors of whiskey. The things we call "moral" are the things we would like other people to do, so we made up the word "should" to compel them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In other words: Is it possible to argue about purely subjective things?

Certainly, if someone is out there saying Cy Twombly is a better artist than Magritte, he's going to get an earful.

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

Augh! AUUUGUUAUGUAGUAUGUAGUAGH! AUAGUAUGUAGUAGUAUGAUUGAUGUAHHHHH!

Must people on the other side persist in making such a misguided claim?

Obviously, if there are no moral facts, then 'objectively wrong' is not a claim anyone can make. This doesn't prevent anyone from expressing or arguing in favor of their opinions. [I believe] Slavery is wrong! [I believe] Slaveholders have done something wrong! Of course we can get upset. Once again, because these moral things are subjective, they matter to us. You can't feed me Brussels sprouts and say I can't forego this foodstuff, because it's 'just my opinion' that they are nasty.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If you have an argument that shows rape to be wrong then it wouldn't be merely subjective, would it?

If it follows from premises that are chosen or assumed, then the conclusion is not based in objective fact.

 

[Bradskii]

If you have an argument that shows rape to be wrong then it wouldn't be merely subjective, would it?

Then nothing is subjective.

Which Godfather did you prefer? And was there an argument you might use to put forward your opinion? Based on objective facts about the movies we can discuss? You can then declare one of them to be objectively better.

Do you think that's a reasonable position?

 

[essentialsaltes]

When someone says something is subjectively wrong they usually mean that it is wrong for them to do,

Incorrect.

If things were objectively wrong, then it would be a brute fact of the universe.

If moral statements are not facts, then there are only opinions. Our opinions can [but don't necessarily] apply to acts universally and absolutely. "[I believe] Rape is always wrong for people similarly situated."