Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

People don't want to be raped. That is the grounding. People don't want to be killed. That is the grounding. People don't want to be robbed. That is all the "grounding" that is required.

A "want" is subjective. Each peoples wants are different. So you have no solid, consistent and truth basis to what a want is to measure things. Someoine may say I don't want to steal, but another may say I want to steal. Who is right or wrong. If there are no right and wrong then that leaves open "wanting to steal as being OK to do". That makes for a open slather society where people can steal from each other without reprise.

A "Want, opinion or preference" is not enough to be an independent measure beyond humans that these things are "Truthfully , Ültimately" and Objectively" wrong to be able to confidently and authoritively say these things are wrong.

Why is this even an issue? None of this is relevant to if morality is subjective or objective.

Yes it is because as explained above'if morals are subjective and theres no objective basis to say something is really wrong to do then people can live out their wants, likes, opinions about morality which could mean anything. Whereas if there are objective morals then at least we can say "No rape is wrong in itself not because you or I say so according to our wants but because its wrong in itself".

The point I am making is despite all the talk about morality being like "wants, likes, dislikes, opinions, feelings ect we still act like moral situiations matter to the point that we want to make them "Truths" and "objective" more than our subjective opinions and wants. So we act like morals are objective everyday. Its impossoble to live morals subjectively and ground them at the same time.

 

[stevevw]

Nah, you are just here to preach.

besides your logical fallacy can you elaborate.

 

[stevevw]

So if morality is objective and he thinks he is doing nothing wrong by his subjective morality aren't you stopping him from expressing and living out his moral views? Obviously you are. Because you think you're right.

But under objective morality we can say that something is morally right or wrong. Its under subjective morality that you cannot really say for others that they are morally wrong in any true sense as the moral opinion, view or feeling only belongs to the person expressing it. So the moral opinion, view or feeling only applies to the person expressing it and not to anyone else.

They cannot then apply their moral opinion, view or feeling to others and make them conform to this because others have their own moral opinion, view or feelings which they think are OK and also have the right to express. Otherwise your forcing people to conform to your opinion, view or feeling when they have a right to their own under subjectivity.

And if morality is subjective and he thinks he is doing nothing wrong by his subjective morality aren't I stopping him from expressing and living out his moral views? Obviously I am. Because I think I'm right.

Yes you think your right but that is no measure that the other person is "Truely" wrong and therefoe that you are "Truely" right. What about their subjective moral views, don't they count. If you go in there forcing him to follow your views you are denying someone who is also right about their moral views.

This would create a chaotic mess of people trumping each other as to what they personally think is right and wrong. Thats why an independent measure is needed. Imagine the food fight at a food tasting convention where people were trying to force each other to conform to their "Likes and Dislieks" for food .

And if the guy is assaulting a woman, then we're in agreement about us being right. And you've literally done nothing to show that what he was doing was objectively wrong.

The point is we act like these things are objectively wrong. Thats the evdience. We don't see a guy assualting a women and walk on by because we think "thats just the attacker acting out his subjective moral views about assault being OK to do".

No we know that this is wrong regardless of epopels personal views. We act like its objectively wrong and condemn it and want justice. There is no room for subjective moral views, opinions or feelings when it comes to live morality. That doesnt mean people don't know morality. It just means they cannot ground morality.

 

[stevevw]

We’re not talking about truth or facts, we’re talking about morality.

Yet morality can have "Truth and Facts".

I never said they did! I said using a half dozen stones, I can provide undeniable objective proof that 2+2=4, not 5. Can you provide undeniable objective proof that rape is wrong?

Ok but lets first establish that the evidence for showing 2+2=4 is a fact is not in the stones themselves but in the Math equation itself.

The stones are just tools to help you show the facts that are already there. 2+2=4 was a fact before you laid the stones out. We have no physical evidence for it and yet its a fact we cannot totally explain why.

Morality works the same. For example when 2 people get togther to seek the "Truth" of a matter the moral value of "Truth" needs to be an objective measure for this to happen coherently. The discussion minus "Truth" will not work. This fact is non-physical like the Math equation. But similar to using the rocks to demonstrate the Math fact we can use the discussion seeking the "Truth" of a matter to show how it works and thats the evdience.

What’s up with all of this guessing? Don’t you know? If morality were objective, it would be as obvious as the Tree in my front lawn, or 1+1=2. Again; what is morality based on if it is not based on human thought?

The Math equation is based on human thought. They are calculating the numbers to get the answer. The same with morality as I explained above. We can measure the behaviour of people in moral situations to see if we need moral truths to make them work (add up if you like). There is no gusessing it can all be reasoned out and by using logic.

And how would things be different if morality were objective?

Like the legal law we could point to certain moral "Truths"or "Facts"and say this behaviour is right and that behaviour is wrong without any personal opinions undermining their status. So when we see someone raping we can say this is morally wrong not because you say so or I say so but because it is wrong in itself.

That would help society as we can have a more clear and united moral code rather than one which is constantly being undermined by personal opinions. Like perosnal opinions have some truth to them which they don't.

Those things can be demonstrated as true; morality cannot.

But people still hold their subjective views about these demonstrated truths as though their personal views trump the objective facts. The Flat Earth Society still thinks the earth is flat even after seeing the objective evidence.

Give an example of a moral fact or truth that stands regardless of peoples views.

Well I have been giving one right through this thread. For example in debates or discussions where we seek the truth of a matter we need to make the moral values of "Truth and Honesty" objective to be able to have a coherent intereaction. Otherwise we cannot have that debate/discussion with any meaning of coherence.

So if someone had the subjective view that "Truth and Honesty" don't matter or count in their debate they cannot have that debate with any coherence. So therefore these morals need to be made objective (untouchable by human views) for it to work properly.

Of course it does! I will have him count two rocks, agree that they are 2, then have him count two more rocks and agree that they are 2. I will then lay all the rocks together, have him count them and he will see they are 4. That is undeniable proof that 2+2=4.

BUt this is based on the premise that everyone involved knows and believes Math is fact in the first place. If they don't believe that then laying doiwn rocks is not going to help.

The whole example means nothing without a concept of Math. So its the Math that make the Truth not the rocks. The rocks are just a tool to express that truth.

Numbers and math are base 10 because humans have 10 fingers. If we had 12 fingers, it would be based on the number 12 and would be different than it is now. It would work the same way, and could be used to figure out the same things base 10 does now, but it would be different. Math is a system humans invented to calculate numbers; also a human invention

But what Math is measuring are facts about nature that were already there and the Math just reveals how accurate Nature is and not humans. But nevertheless all this method of calculation says nothing about whether Math is a fact. It only describes how Maths works.

 

[stevevw]

I've seen cases where men rape lesbians thinking it will make them straight. These people obviously think that the rape they are committing is morally right.

In any case, I'm still waiting to hear how we determine which of two different acts is the most moral. I keep being told that morality is objective, yet an objective method of description is apparently impossible to provide.

OK sorry I didnt realize that you were waiting. I must have missed that post. What were the 2 acts that you asked as to which was the most moral again.

 

[Bradskii]

But under objective morality we can say that something is morally right or wrong. Its under subjective morality that you cannot really say for others that they are morally wrong in any true sense as the moral opinion, view or feeling only belongs to the person expressing it. So the moral opinion, view or feeling only applies to the person expressing it and not to anyone else.

I don't know how I can get this through to you, Steve. It's been nearly 1400 posts and you still don't understand the argument.

If someone is going to do something that I think is really, really, REALLY wrong, then I will do my best to stop her. Because I think it's really, really, REALLY wrong. What she thinks about it is completely and utterly irrelevant to me. So 2 scenarios:

1. What would you do? Say 'Hold fast, Bradskii. As far as you are concerned, she thinks it's perfectly ok. You have no right to prevent her from doing it'.

2. Let's say I hypnotise you into believing that morality is subjective. If you come across the same situation, then are you honestly telling me that, even though you think that what she's about to do is really, really, REALLY wrong, you would shrug your shoulders and tell her 'Well, if you think it's ok, then who am I to argue'.

Does either of those scenarios really make any kind of sense to you?

 

[stevevw]

I don't know how I can get this through to you, Steve. It's been nearly 1400 posts and you still don't understand the argument.

If someone is going to do something that I think is really, really, REALLY wrong, then I will do my best to stop her. Because I think it's really, really, REALLY wrong. What she thinks about it is completely and utterly irrelevant to me. So 2 scenarios:

1. What would you do? Say 'Hold fast, Bradskii. As far as you are concerned, she thinks it's perfectly ok. You have no right to prevent her from doing it'.

2. Let's say I hypnotise you into believing that morality is subjective. If you come across the same situation, then are you honestly telling me that, even though you think that what she's about to do is really, really, REALLY wrong, you would shrug your shoulders and tell her 'Well, if you think it's ok, then who am I to argue'.

Does either of those scenarios really make any kind of sense to you?

No of course not, they are counter intuitive morally.

I am not saying that anyone who supports subjective morality doesnt know what is the right or wrong way to act morally. I am saying they don;t have any grounding for their moral actions.

I believe you when tell me that you really, really, really think its wrong and therefore this motivates you to do something. But I wonder what the basis is for you then taking that belief and applying it to another person likes its a belief beyond you that can force another to conform with your beliefs, views about morality. Thats the only issue I am having trouble understanding.

I believe you, when you say you really believe when something is morally wrong. But what is your grounding for taking that belief and applying it to the world (in real moral situations).

Just because you can know what is morally right or tru doesnt mean there are no objective morals. In fact that is what moral realism is about. The fact that people live like morality is objective becasue we all intuitively know what is morally right and wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

I believe you, when you say you really believe when something is morally wrong. But what is your grounding for taking that belief and applying it to the world (in real moral situations).

What's with this 'grounding'? You don't step in to prevent that woman doing what she's about to do simply because you think there is a grounding for your beliefs. You step in anyway. You step in even if you think morality is subjective. You don't ponder the situation. You don't decide to act only if this and only if that. You can work out whether you think it was objectively wrong later if you like. You can write pages on it. You can write a thesis. But when the rubber hits the road, you think 'That's wrong. I must stop her'.

So at that point, it's your beliefs versus hers. So you stop her. And later on you can mull it over and decide if what she was doing was objectively wrong or just relatively wrong. If you think it was objectively wrong then you can pat yourself on the back. Job well done!

But what happens if you conclude it was subjectively wrong? Do you then think 'Gee, I had no right to stop her. Her opinion is just as valid as mine'? Of course not. Let's get real here.

 

[Moral Orel]

But I am not a subjectivists.

Right, but you are talking about, "If morality is subjective then..." so you can't insert your objectivity into that. Do you understand why you are contradicting yourself when you say "If morality is subjective then you should..."?

Ok I thought I answered it. OK the "so what?" is that even though you claim under subjective morality there is no "Right and Wrong" you act like these things are morally "Right and Wrong" in an objective way. So your position contradicts itself.

No, I don't. I act as though I like some things, and I act as though I dislike some things. Some things I don't care about.

When I go to the store and purchase chocolate ice cream, it isn't because I believe that my freezer objectively ought to have chocolate ice cream. It's because I like chocolate ice cream. That's it. No more.

Your argument seems to be, "If you do stuff, then you believe that stuff is objectively good". That's ludicrous.

For example when you say "Yes, I am intolerant of other people's views sometimes" you are using the moral value of "Tolerance" as an objective measure of "Intolerant". Otherwise why even use the word if there isnt any right or wrong involved.

??? No. "Tolerate" has a common usage, so I use it to convey my meaning. That doesn't mean that it is objectively good or objectively bad to tolerate.

 

[partinobodycular]

The fact that people live like morality is objective becasue we all intuitively know what is morally right and wrong.

I put intuition right up there with horoscopes and psychic hotlines for credibility. In other words, for me, the credibility of intuition is pretty much zero.

Can you give me an act for which the only means you have of determining that it's immoral is your intuition?

 

[Bradskii]

I put intuition right up there with horoscopes and psychic hotlines for credibility. In other words, for me, the credibility of intuition is pretty much zero.

Can you give me an act for which the only means you have of determining that it's immoral is your intuition?

I wouldn't bank on it being right.

Didn't we briefly mention Kahneman's Thinking Fast And Slow book? Half way through at the second reading. Intuition is his System 1. The unconscious snap decisions we all make all the time. And it's suprising how many times the answer is right when the decision is of low level every-day run-of-the mill actions. If it's high level importance, it's a system that fails safe. So you jump immediately at the rustle in the grass when a conscious decision would take long enough to see you dead if it was a rattler rather than a frog. Or you shoot first and ask questions later.

But as regards decisions on moral actions? Use System 2. Conscious determination based on all available evidence. You might still be wrong. But at least you'll know why.

 

[stevevw]

What's with this 'grounding'?

Its something that you can use to measure that your view of morally is right or wrong beyond your personal subjective views, opinions and feelings.

You don't step in to prevent that woman doing what she's about to do simply because you think there is a grounding for your beliefs. You step in anyway.

You don't ponder the situation. You don't decide to act only if this and only if that. You can work out whether you think it was objectively wrong later if you like. You can write pages on it. You can write a thesis. But when the rubber hits the road, you think 'That's wrong. I must stop her'.

Actually I think we do step in because we believe we have grounding for that moral position. We don't do the working out whether we have any grounding when the situation comes up because we have already don that and have filtered that moral to determined its morally right to express condemnation, and want justice because its objectively wrong. Thats our moral intuition.

You step in even if you think morality is subjective.

I appreciate that most people do this. But my issue is for those is that there is no grounding for this action. In fact its sort of contradictory to acting as a subjectivists. Heres why I think.

If there are no moral rights and wrongs and what is said to be morals are really like feelings, opinions and preferences then how can someone condemn or stop someone else for expressing their feelings, opinions and preferences. ie, How can someone stop another from liking to steal when they think stealing is not morally wrong but just don't like it. The same logic applied to food it would be like stopping someone from liking peas because you don't like them. Thats how strange it seems to me.

So at that point, it's your beliefs versus hers. So you stop her. And later on you can mull it over and decide if what she was doing was objectively wrong or just relatively wrong. If you think it was objectively wrong then you can pat yourself on the back. Job well done!

And if it wasn't then you have just stopped someone without any basis for doing so. That is like we see with ISIS ect. I am saying we already have self-evidence in our intuitions. We see a rape or robbery situation and we know its not right straight away and we react that way. But our intuition is a combination of already tested similar moral scenarios we have experiences with some assessments of whether they are real and right.

But I keep coming back to what the proper subjective position should be if we want to assess whether its practcial and real. From what I understand the proper response for any moral acts that is deemed wrong under subjective morality should be saying "In my opinion you are wrong to commit that act, but I understand that you also have your opinions and views on this so none of us are really right or wrong. Therefore it should be live and let live.

But I realize that doesn't happen. But it should if subjective morality is all there is because we would never have any evdience that we are right. Like I said it would be like someone going around condemning people for liking peas or hating oysters. Its because there are moral objective that people cannot act like subjective morals exist. Its impossible to do so.

But what happens if you conclude it was subjectively wrong? Do you then think 'Gee, I had no right to stop her. Her opinion is just as valid as mine'? Of course not. Let's get real here.

lol. I agree that that would be counter to how we behave. But for me as you explained things if there were no objective morality then people should act like that. They should be acting like its their moral opinion and stating "In my Opinion" and not acting as thought they know the truth of the matter outside them. Though it sounds counter intuitive and that is why subjective morality is impossible to apply.

 

[Moral Orel]

Its the "Should" thats the probelm under subjective morality. There isnt any "Shoulds" unless there is a grounding to base them in.

But I keep coming back to what the proper subjective position should be if we want to assess whether its practcial and real. From what I understand the proper response for any moral acts that is deemed wrong under subjective morality should be saying "In my opinion you are wrong to commit that act, but I understand that you also have your opinions and views on this so none of us are really right or wrong. Therefore it should be live and let live.

Look at the bolding. Do you see yourself contradicting your own statements yet?

 

[Bradskii]

Actually I think we do step in because we believe we have grounding for that moral position.

It's just something you say every post, Steve. But I've not seen in any way whatsoever at any time what you might think it can actually be. There is zero evidence for this. There is no way that you indicate how you might have access to it. You haven't told us how you know it's right when you access it. You haven't gone into any details about it whatsoever.

Are we talking about information you personally receive in a supernatural way? Do you mean God? Is this revelation? If it is, how do you know it's accurate? If it is, what do we say when someone else says they have it but their opinion on a moral matter is completely different?

If you know what's right or wrong because you have some way of knowing, then if we have any moral problem whatsoever then we can simply ask you. You become the oracle. So if you have some way, then I want to know about it.

If you don't, then your personal views on any moral problem are just as valid as mine. So let us know how you access this grounding. Tell us how you know what is right and wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Because it might be easier to answer? I'll stick with this one, thanks. You've asked for further information in order that you can answer it. I've given it to you.

So when does the punishment become objectively immoral?

Prediction: I judge the act and you come back with other information prefaced by, "Come on man, it's obvious that ..." about some facet that is not at all obvious.

So, there is nothing else in your "easy to answer" case that you have not disclosed that bears on judging the morality of the act? Of course there is. "In the concrete" means nothing is abstracted away, as you have, to make for an "easy answer".

 

[o_mlly]

Yeah, still waiting to hear how we objectively determine the amount of moral goodness or moral badness an act has.

Disappointing, to say the least.

 

[Bradskii]

Prediction: I judge the act and you come back with other information prefaced by, "Come on man, it's obvious that ..." about some facet that is not at all obvious.

So, there is nothing else in your "easy to answer" case that you have not disclosed that bears on judging the morality of the act? Of course there is. "In the concrete" means nothing is abstracted away, as you have, to make for an "easy answer".

The example is anything that you would consider normal for a father as a means to punish his daughter for whatever she has done. But she is sent to her room in the basement. The length of time is whatever you consider to be entirely acceptable. It is whatever you consider to be morally act by the father.

Now extend that length of time so that any reasonable person would consider it an exceptionally immoral act. You pick the length of time.

Now I think we're on safe ground that some people would say that if that length of time reaches a ridiculous amount then it could be said to be objectively wrong.

Your question, if you agree that it would reach such a position, is to explain when it changes to become objectively wrong.

 

[partinobodycular]

If it's high level importance, it's a system that fails safe. So you jump immediately at the rustle in the grass when a conscious decision would take long enough to see you dead if it was a rattler rather than a frog.

I would put such actions squarely in the instinctive category, and not the intuitive category.

To me "intuitive" is a belief, seemingly held without a discernible cause.

But if one examines such beliefs closely enough you'll always find one of two things to be true. Either there are subtle cues that the person is unknowingly picking up on, or they really are based on a whim, but have no greater likelihood of being correct than mere chance.

Consider a novice poker player who believes that they have a strong intuition for when an opponent is bluffing. In such a case one of two things will be true. Either they're subconsciously picking up on their opponent's "tells". Or they're selectively remembering the times when their "intuition" was correct, and unwittingly forgetting the times when it wasn't, leading them to believe that their intuition is more reliable than it actually is.

In the first instance such uncanny "intuition" has a perfectly natural explanation, which can be demystified by simply learning to recognize the causes. Unfortunately, in the second instance people tend to get the false impression that they have some sort of supernatural "psychic" ability that goes beyond natural explanation.

So a good poker player is one who no longer relies on intuition, and a bad poker player is one who does.

The moral of the story, don't rely on intuition.

 

[Bradskii]

I would put such actions squarely in the instinctive category, and not the intuitive category.

To me "intuitive" is a belief, seemingly held without a discernible cause.

But if one examines such beliefs closely enough you'll always find one of two things to be true. Either there are subtle cues that the person is unknowingly picking up on, or they really are based on a whim, but have no greater likelihood of being correct than mere chance.

That's pretty much how Kahneman describes it. The unconscious does an immediate retrieval in memory and finds something that fits the current scenario and then bases a snap decision on that. He uses a couple of examples of firefighters who just 'know' that something bad is going to happen and one might immediately clear a room before the roof caves in. He'd not be aware of the reasons at the time but his subconscious was acting very quickly to prompt him to act.

As you say, some of these gut feelings are incorrect. System 1 thinking takes the easiest route to find an answer because it wants the answer quickly - and it's not necessarily the best route. But best to clear the room immediately rather than stand there and wonder if it's the right call. But if you know someone who plays poker on a whim, then tell him he's welcome at the next poker night.

 

[stevevw]

Look at the bolding. Do you see yourself contradicting your own statements yet?

Yes I see this but I am not contradicting myself because I think there are moral objectives so I can claim there are "Shoulds". But I think this is also recognised by many philosophers some I have linked.

I am saying if you look at how a subjective moral system would work because there are no moral right and wrongs no one could condemn or stop anyone from doing something morally wrong. Now some people will say that it is our preferences, opinions that determine what is good or bad. But thats arbitrary because everyone has different opinions and preferences. There is still no objective way to determine what is morally right or wrong.

Yet if we act like moral situations matter more than our personal opinions then it would folow that we find out what is the best way to act. This presupposes there is a ground for measuring what is the better/best way to act morally.