Is there Objective Morality?

[essentialsaltes]

Then you investigate what the angles are of the triangle before you make your determination.

In the analogy, this means you have some method to objectively determine the morality of an action, like measuring the angles of the triangle with a protractor. What is that objective method? Where are our moral protractors?

 

[VirOptimus]

Are you saying that moral realists don't use rationality to determine moral facts/truths.

I say you dont understand what moral realism entails.

Its grossly simplified built on the axiom that morals are objective and the axioms that they can be studied and known with logic and rationality.

It has no proof or data supporting the axioms.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes, it is. You may call the argument "ridiculous" but not the poster.

If the category "mammal" has shades of grey then you must have some creature in mind that the taxonomists have missed. Kindly identify that creature for us.


? Do you have a "typo" to correct? The "but the argument you put forward" has no consequent or predicate. ? What follows from this disjunctive phrase does not make sense. Kindly rewrite your thought.



Without argument, you assert that objectivity requires measure-ability. Let's have your argument to support your assertion.

If morals cant be measured or shown to exist, why do they matter?

 

[partinobodycular]

So lets take our current debate. If I think "honesty and truth" are subjective morals then I can keep making up logical fallacies to win my arguement and the debate would breakdown because you could not tell which was a lie and which was the truth.

Except that it's not necessary for you to actually make them up for them to become part of the debate.

Let's use a current example...the 2020 U.S election. This is something which has certainly been debated a lot lately, and is an important part of many people's worldview.

One of the difficulties in such a debate, and why they do indeed often break down, is because each participant in the debate comes in with their own set of "truths". But these "truths" can be made up of everything from absolute truths to outright lies. One participant in the debate may believe that extra ballots were secreted in during the middle of the night, and this may be based on a complete lie, but for that person, this lie constitutes part of their "truth". And this isn't just true for some people, to some degree or other, it's true for all of us. We all have things that we believe are true, but that we don't actually know are true. Such that in a debate, or in life, it becomes extremely difficult for us to differentiate the truths from the lies.

And therein lies the problem, because each person has their own subjective set of truths, and this subjective set of truths colors everything we do, from our position in a debate to how we interact with law enforcement, or ethnic groups, or political groups, or gays.

You're focusing on the fact that they're "truths" with a little "t", but they're only truths in the sense that the person believes them, when in fact, they may not be true at all. So yes, as these forums clearly demonstrate, it becomes impossible to separate the truths from the lies, and debates do quite often break down.

You're pointing at people's reliance on "truths" as if it's a noble and moral thing, when all it is, is one persons subjective opinion versus another person's subjective opinion. And truth, where it exists, is somewhat of an afterthought. Debates aren't so much about finding the truth, as they are about defending each participant's personal version of it.

If truth and honesty really were important to you, then like me, you would be an epistemological solipsist.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not sure about that. But in the example I gave this showed that the moral values of "Honesty" and "Truth" are necessary and therefore untouchable.

No, you only said they are necessary if you want a coherent discussion. You’ve proven nothing, and even if you did, how do you equate necessary with your subjective view to be untouchable?

Ok But the scenario you gave was very ambigious. You were talking about action X being right and wrong but never explain yourself how you were determining these are correctly right and wrong without any objective measure. So it was an unreal sceario or at least one that was not very clear.

That’s because in real world discussions, there IS no objective measure for determining right vs wrong; hence my claim that morality is subjective

Yes but because Ken thinks its Honesty is subjective the scenario has to potentially allow for him to reject applying Honesty if he chooses. But he can't even if he wanted to because "Honesty" is necessary.

But he could reject honesty if he believed honesty to be objective as well! If you disagree, explain what would prevent him

The point is the moral values of "Honesty and Truth"have lost their status as rules and guides for your debate. If you friend lies you have no way of telling or point this out to him. If you still choose to tell the truth no one will know its the truth as the "Truth" as once again there is no way to measure this.

Objective morality does not change this

There is no morality at all if you are measuring it under subjective morality because there is no measure of " Honesty" beyond the person. Its just personal opinions

Yes there is; the measure of honesty is your personal subjective views

We use moral realism. How morality works in real life. We have to look at each situation and determine if the morals are objective or not as I have done in the debate scenario.

Oh so some moral situations are objective and others subjective? How do you tell the difference? Perhaps you can give an scenario of each.
But for the sake of discussion, assume we are referring to an objective moral situation; what method do we employ to verify good vs bad?

 

[o_mlly]

Think of the equivocal word 'sound'. One can think of it as compressions and rarefactions in air (or other medium). Or as 'a thing one hears'.

"Sound" is not "either/or" as you claim but both. In the absence of a sensitive creature with ears, there is no sound.

Sound as a physical phenomenon is a fact. An objective category. We can even apply qualities to sound like loudness that can be objectively measured, even if no human is there to hear it.

No, "sound" is not an objective category. If no sensitive creature with ears is present then there is no sound. If there is a sensitive creature and that creature is man then what the man senses, he perceives, and what he perceives can only be subjectively experienced.

It seems to me that morality is a human invention like genre. And thus there is no fact of the matter.

All of natural science is a human invention. Does that fact render all natural science to be subjective?

It might seem attractive to move entirely to the world of ideas, since my example still rests on the physical phenomenon of sound. But really things become worse. This way lies o_mily and the syllogisms. But we've already seen there is disagreement about the axioms and premises.

Not true. We have evidence shows that rape causes the physical phenomenon of dysfunction in the victims.
Mental Health Impact of Rape

All natural science claims are based on evidence and reason. So is the morality of human acts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Sound" is not "either/or" as you claim but both.

Most people try to avoid equivocation in rational argument, but you be you.

All of natural science is a human invention. Does that fact render all natural science to be subjective?

Newton's Theory of Gravity is a human invention.
Gravity is not a human invention.
The map is not the territory.
Morality seems to be all map and no territory.

 

[o_mlly]

Most people try to avoid equivocation in rational argument, but you be you.

Sorry to correct that equivocation. But to correct an error of equivocation is to be honest. But I be me.

Newton's Theory of Gravity is a human invention.
Gravity is not a human invention.
The map is not the territory.
Morality seems to be all map and no territory.

The idea of gravity is a human conception.
The concept of gravity is not gravity per se; only an unproven human idea of it.

If the theories of morality are not objective then neither are the theories in natural science. The blood-brain barrier is analogous to the reality-brain-barrier. Our scientific knowledge about reality comes only through experience; experience via fallible senses and never directly. Truth, knowledge that conforms to reality, is beyond the scientific method. Science postulates but never proves its claims as true.

All science is conciliar. That is, a collection of like-minded subjective opinions does not elevate those opines to magically become objective.

 

[essentialsaltes]

All science is conciliar. That is, a collection of like-minded subjective opinions does not elevate those opines to magically become objective.

No skin off my nose.

 

[Ken-1122]

The idea of gravity is a human conception.
The concept of gravity is not gravity per se; only an unproven human idea of it.

You do realize the idea of gravity and the concept of gravity are the same thing; right?

If the theories of morality are not objective then neither are the theories in natural science.

Mortality is not a scientific theory; morality are human judgments of actions. Scientific theories explain how things work in the natural world. One has nothing to do with the other

 

[Kylie]

If the category "mammal" has shades of grey then you must have some creature in mind that the taxonomists have missed. Kindly identify that creature for us.

Where did I say that there are shades of grey to being a mammal? You need to read the last sentence there again, since I very clearly stated, "Something is either completely mammal or completely non-mammal, there are no shades of grey."

? Do you have a "typo" to correct? The "but the argument you put forward" has no consequent or predicate. ? What follows from this disjunctive phrase does not make sense. Kindly rewrite your thought.

I was quite clear.

You attempted to use the mammal analogy (in which something can't be more or less mammal, it's either a mammal or it isn't) as an analogue to morality. This only works if morality is, likewise, binary. Something is either morally good or it is not morally good or it is not morally good, there are no shades of grey.

If your analogy is correct, then all things in the "morally bad" category are equally bad, just as how all animals in the mammal category are equally mammal. Thus, stealing a chocolate is just as bad as murder.

If you disagree and claim that there are shades of grey when it comes to morality, then you are admitting that the analogy you presented in post 1186 was a waste of everyone's time since it doesn't apply.

Without argument, you assert that objectivity requires measure-ability. Let's have your argument to support your assertion.

You need some way to measure the morality of something in order to show that some moral things are more morally good or bad than others. For example, rape and name calling are both morally bad, but most people would agree that rape is by far worse than name calling. How do you show that rape is worse than name calling if it can't be measured?

 

[stevevw]

In the analogy, this means you have some method to objectively determine the morality of an action, like measuring the angles of the triangle with a protractor. What is that objective method? Where are our moral protractors?

You don't always need some instrument for measurement. We can observe behaviour and determine the way people behave shows certain ways they behave and react to moral situations. We can then determine that people seem to act like morals are objective in moral situations. The same method is used in psychology to determine that certain behaviours exhibit depression, anxiety and other mental states.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We can then determine that people seem to act like morals are objective in moral situations.

#1: We can then determine that people seem to act like Trump won the election, but this doesn't make it true that Trump won the election.

#2: I don't actually think you can make that determination. You can determine that people seem to act as though they really do have some sort of moral sense. But this is hardly a newsflash. That is not the same as showing that morality is objective. Any more than demonstrating that people really do have some sort of taste sense shows that taste is an objective fact.

 

[stevevw]

No, you only said they are necessary if you want a coherent discussion.

OK thats half the support.

You’ve proven nothing, and even if you did, how do you equate necessary with your subjective view to be untouchable?

Its pretty logical you cannot seek the "Truth" without the "Truth". So you have to allow the "TRuth" its full value and status. You cannot deminish it with subjective views that its not needed in your debate. Otherwise you cannot have the debate.

That’s because in real world discussions, there IS no objective measure for determining right vs wrong; hence my claim that morality is subjective

But you argue like there is an objective right and wrong or thats the conclusion I keep coming to. You make objective claims like slavery or rape are wrong like you know its the truth not just for yourself but also for myself and everyone.

In any debate when people disagree over a moral value only one can be correct. That in itself logically implies there is an objective right and wrong because both people cannot be right. So one of us has got things wrong. Otherwise why disagree.

Its counter intuitive to say we can never say that rape of child abuse is objectively wrong. Its a strange thing to say and goes against our intuitions that its wrong.

But he could reject honesty if he believed honesty to be objective as well! If you disagree, explain what would prevent him

Why would he reject "Honesty" if he thought it was an objective then valuing "Honesty" would make the debate go lot easier. But yeah he could just ignore everything and still reject "Honesty". I just means he cannot have a good debate to find the "Truth" of the matter that seemed to matter to him.

Objective morality does not change this

Yes it does as "Truth" and "Honesty" become like laws when objective. No subjective view can change that. People have to respect and uphold their moral value and status. The moment they choose to devalue "Truth" and "Honesty" and make then unnecessary then the debate ends as it breaksdown.

Yes there is; the measure of honesty is your personal subjective views

Yes and say it was your personal subjective view that you don't need "Truth" and "Honesty" in a debate seeking the truth. How do you find the truth if "Truth" and "Honesty" are no longer necessary.

Oh so some moral situations are objective and others subjective? How do you tell the difference? Perhaps you can give an scenario of each.

There is always a real moral truth in any moral situation but that doesn't stop people having subjective views about morality.

But for the sake of discussion, assume we are referring to an objective moral situation; what method do we employ to verify good vs bad?

We work out what is the best moral action for that situation.

So in a debate to find the truth the best and only right moral act is to make "Truth" and "Honesty" necessarily binding to the debate. No subujective views allowed. We intuitively act that way in debates anyway so all we are doing is testing is that holds up by applying rationality and logic to justify our belief this is the best moral action.

 

[stevevw]

#1: We can then determine that people seem to act like Trump won the election, but this doesn't make it true that Trump won the election.

Of course it does. Why would people act like trump won the election if he didn't. That would be a counter intuitive reaction. People would think these people are strange. They would realy start thinking things are strange when nearly everyone acts like trump won when he didn't. You'd either think why wasn't I let in on the joke or am I on the Trueman show lol.

#2: I don't actually think you can make that determination. You can determine that people seem to act as though they really do have some sort of moral sense. But this is hardly a newsflash. That is not the same as showing that morality is objective. Any more than demonstrating that people really do have some sort of taste sense shows that taste is an objective fact.

I think it does. I think comparing it to a physical ability for taste is not a good comparison because a moral sense of intuition is not a physical thing. The only comparison I have seen is comparing subjective morality to someones "like or dislike" for food. But this is also a poor comparison as objective morality has to be grounded outside the persons head and subjective "like or dislike" or opinions are from inside the persons head.

So can assess whether certain moral behaviour is the best and sometimes the only way to behave in certain morally lived situations. As mentioned we intuitively act that way unless a person hasnt got a conscience. When we see a women being attacked in the street for example we know something is wrong with that situation. We don't even have to know what the details are. We just react like something is wrong.

So through rationality and logic we can see if there is a best way to act in that situation because it mattered to us. In any situation there is a best way to act or go. So we don't want to find the second best way but the best way.

As it turns out from what I have ben reading going along with our intuitions with some logic & rationality (because morality is a rational enterprise) its a pretty good and close way to find the moral truth in any moral situation.

 

[stevevw]

Except that it's not necessary for you to actually make them up for them to become part of the debate.

Let's use a current example...the 2020 U.S election. This is something which has certainly been debated a lot lately, and is an important part of many people's worldview.

One of the difficulties in such a debate, and why they do indeed often break down, is because each participant in the debate comes in with their own set of "truths". But these "truths" can be made up of everything from absolute truths to outright lies.

I just wanted to point out before the example that the fact that people come to a debate or discussion or even issue like you’re talking about with Trump that its not about whether people have their own truths, absolute truths or lies but that there is a “Truth” a truth that is being sought and that matters.

Otherwise they are not really truths but maybe opinions or something. So it shows that even thought these self made truths are in existence rather that not people intuitively know that the "Truth" matters.

When two or more people come together suddenly the persons truth matters more than other people’s truths. But logically there can only be one truth like in our debate of whether there is subjective or objective morality or whether “Honesty” is a moral truth or not. One of us must be wrong as we both cannot be right.

One participant in the debate may believe that extra ballots were secreted in during the middle of the night, and this may be based on a complete lie, but for that person, this lie constitutes part of their "truth".

Even though it’s the persons truth the fact that a person’s “Truth” may be a lie or mixed with lies logically implies that there must be an objective truth that the person can know to measure these lies to expose them as mistruths.

Otherwise it’s not really a “Truth” but rather a subjective opinion or view and lies are just like “Dislikes” or something. I think it’s when people interact with others that those personal truths are put to the test and that’s when an objective truth will really matter. People begin to appeal to a truth beyond them.

And this isn't just true for some people, to some degree or other, it's true for all of us. We all have things that we believe are true, but that we don't actually know are true. Such that in a debate, or in life, it becomes extremely difficult for us to differentiate the truths from the lies.

I don’t think it’s as bad as that and we can still appreciate and know moral truths like “Truth and Honesty and Fairness” etc. But that’s not the point. It doesn’t matter that we don’t always find the “Truth” or we may come a step closer to finding. It’s that we talk and act like there is an objective moral. We speak of lies and truth like they matter and count not just for me but for everyone the same.

You’re doing it now. We are making the “Truth” something that matters morally when we talk about finding it, not finding it, losing it etc. Like there’s something to lose and it matters.

And therein lies the problem, because each person has their own subjective set of truths, and this subjective set of truths colors everything we do, from our position in a debate to how we interact with law enforcement, or ethnic groups, or political groups, or gays.

But if we apply this logic to the physical sciences we could say people have their own truths/views about who assassinated Kennedy, quantum mechanics and even your example as to whether Trump is president. We can determine the objective truth of these matters.

Just because people have subjective truths about the matter doesn’t mean there is an objective truth to be found. Just because you say it’s too difficult now doesn’t mean there is no objective truth or that we can find it in the future. We just don’t understand enough to know.

Abortion is a good example. In recent times views on abortion are changing because technology has been able to understand the foetus better, i.e. when the heart stops, that it seems to sense pain etc.

You're focusing on the fact that they're "truths" with a little "t", but they're only truths in the sense that the person believes them, when in fact, they may not be true at all. So yes, as these forums clearly demonstrate, it becomes impossible to separate the truths from the lies, and debates do quite often break down.

I agree and nowadays its getting really hard with fake news and subjectivism and relativism being promoted so much. Especially on social media. The point is people still act like theres truths beyond them.

The question is “Do you think that people need to make morals values like “Honesty and Truth” for example objective in these debates seeking a truth. Not your truth or my truth but a truth. Otherwise its not really about "Truth" is it but rather opinion.

That’s what I find counter that people act like there is a moral truth when people come together. If they disagree about an issue they both can’t be right so one is obviously wrong on the matter. Because only one can be right that follows there must be an objective to find to verify what is right or wrong.

You may not find the “Truth” in that debate but you may be a step closer.

It’s the fact that people act like they want to find the truth of something that matters to them morally. They speak and act like there is a “Truth” outside them.

You're pointing at people's reliance on "truths" as if it's a noble and moral thing, when all it is, is one persons subjective opinion versus another person's subjective opinion. And truth, where it exists, is somewhat of an afterthought. Debates aren't so much about finding the truth, as they are about defending each participant's personal version of it.

If truth and honesty really were important to you, then like me, you would be an epistemological solipsist.

Well the argument for moral realism stems from epistemology. If there are epistemological facts then there are moral facts because morals like “Honesty” and “Truth” are interwoven with epistemological facts.

 

[o_mlly]

quite clear.

You attempted to use the mammal analogy (in which something can't be more or less mammal, it's either a mammal or it isn't) as an analogue to morality. This only works if morality is, likewise, binary. Something is either morally good or it is not morally good or it is not morally good, there are no shades of grey.

? An animal categorized as a mammal cannot be categorized as a non-mammal. An immoral human act cannot be categorized as a moral act

If your analogy is correct, then all things in the "morally bad" category are equally bad, just as how all animals in the mammal category are equally mammal. Thus, stealing a chocolate is just as bad as murder.

If you disagree and claim that there are shades of grey when it comes to morality, then you are admitting that the analogy you presented in post 1186 was a waste of everyone's time since it doesn't apply.

Your logic is still faulty. The categorical properties necessary for inclusion as mammals need not be equal. For instance, nipples are necessary as a categorical property for a mammalian creature. Dogs on average have 8 nipples, cats only 6, humans only 2. Likewise, in the property of hair or fur, vast differences occur in the extent of the coverage and density within the mammalian creatures.

You need some way to measure the morality of something in order to show that some moral things are more morally good or bad than others. For example, rape and name calling are both morally bad, but most people would agree that rape is by far worse than name calling. How do you show that rape is worse than name calling if it can't be measured?

Still just an assertion. To demonstrate that there is a category, I do not have to show that within the category that there are measurable inequalities only that there is a common property which all members share equally.

 

[stevevw]

I say you dont understand what moral realism entails.

Its grossly simplified built on the axiom that morals are objective and the axioms that they can be studied and known with logic and rationality.

I agree that there is more to moral realism. Perhaps you should check out one of the videos I linked earlier. This is very helpful in understanding moral realism. But you can get an idea of what it is like with Wikipedias explanation

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#:~:text=Moral realism (also ethical realism,they report those features accurately.

Sure there's anti realism arguemnets which are addressed in the articles I have linked. There are also several positive arguements for moral realism that need to be adressed by the skeptic. So it is more complex and I don't deny that.

The axioms are not unfounded. There is good support for this. Its establishing that the moral is independent of the subject and with rationality and logic for which we can at least be justified in our belief that the moral is objective.

It has no proof or data supporting the axioms.

The proof is in the way people behave morally. They act out moral truths everyday. You can use an example like I have given and determine the facts ie "You cannot have a debate seeking the truth without making the "Truth" independent of peoples subjective views about its status or value. Its self evident in the way people act/react morally.

For example. If you or I or anyone was walking down the street and we seen a women being attacked we wouldnt walk on by thinking "the rapist is only acting out his subjective views about rape". We stop and think something is wrong.

I would imagine just about everyone who had a conscience would act/react the same way. Then as Wiki says we can use logic and rationality to see if those moral facts "report those features accurately". So theres your evidence, the way the person acts/react to a moral wrong like its wrong beyond their subjective thinking ie an objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion).

Moral realism: Defined
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

 

[VirOptimus]

I agree that there is more to moral realism. Perhaps you should check out one of the videos I linked earlier. This is very helpful in understanding moral realism. But you can get an idea of what it is like with Wikipedias explanation

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#:~:text=Moral realism (also ethical realism,they report those features accurately.

Sure there's anti realism arguemnets which are addressed in the articles I have linked. There are also several positive arguements for moral realism that need to be adressed by the skeptic. So it is more complex and I don't deny that.

The axioms are not unfounded. There is good support for this. Its establishing that the moral is independent of the subject and with rationality and logic for which we can at least be justified in our belief that the moral is objective.
The proof is in the way people behave morally. They act out moral truths everyday. You can use an example like I have given and determine the facts ie "You cannot have a debate seeking the truth without making the "Truth" independent of peoples subjective views about its status or value. Its self evident in the way people act/react morally.

For example. If you or I or anyone was walking down the street and we seen a women being attacked we wouldnt walk on by thinking "the rapist is only acting out his subjective views about rape". We stop and think something is wrong.

I would imagine just about everyone who had a conscience would act/react the same way. Then as Wiki says we can use logic and rationality to see if those moral facts "report those features accurately". So theres your evidence, the way the person acts/react to a moral wrong like its wrong beyond their subjective thinking ie an objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion).

Moral realism: Defined
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

Im not the one who need to be informed, its you who really really dont understand the basics of moral philosophy. You constantly make cringeworthy statements that dont reflect the positions of the different schools.

Also, you seem to belive that not accepting a objective morality somehow makes one have no moral views. That is frankly, just stupid.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course it does. Why would people act like trump won the election if he didn't.

Have you been aware of any US political news in the past year?

OK, I'm trying to salvage what your point might have been.

Among that crowd, I'm sure there are many who sincerely believe that Trump won the 2020 election.

And so their actions that we see are consonant with that belief. We understand that their beliefs have motivated these actions that we observe.

But my point is that sincerely holding the belief that Trump won the 2020 election does not imply that it is true that he won the election. (In fact, he lost.)

Likewise, sincerely holding the belief that "Moral facts exist (i.e. morality is objective)" does not imply that statement is true. So even if I granted that people act as though it is true does not shed any light on whether it actually is.

I think comparing it to a physical ability for taste is not a good comparison because a moral sense of intuition is not a physical thing. The only comparison I have seen is comparing subjective morality to someones "like or dislike" for food.

You're discussing observational studies of people's behavior (i.e. physical actions in the physical world). Some people, when presented with Brussels Sprouts, say 'Thanks, I'll pass.' Some people, when presented with an opportunity to take a wallet found on the sidewalk, turn it in to the police.

This certainly tells us something about people's internal propensities. But I don't see how you can conclude that someone acts as though they subjectively believe they don't like Brussels sprouts, but acts as though they objectively believe they don't like theft.
[And again, back to the first point, even if they believe their moral sense is objective, that doesn't make it so.]
[Finally, is "how Brussels sprouts tastes to me" a physical thing? Or something that happens in my head?]