Is there Objective Morality?

[durangodawood]

...But if no statement about morality can be demonstrated to be objective, then there is no support for the claim "morality is objective."...

Depends how you express it.

You can say: a world where we kill our neighbor in their sleep would be miserable to live in and so, because we hate misery, we should call that behavior "wrong".

Seems objectively true and demonstrable. And its also a moral statement, just not expressed the typical shorthand way.

 

[stevevw]

You really should actually read my posts before responding.

I was not saying that there was an equal number of people who disagree.

I said that the people who disagree were EQUALLY QUALIFIED.

OK sorry. Then my other point still stands that even those who disagreed still though moral realism was a rational position. So even though they were anti moral realists they still agreed that moral realims was a reasonable position to take. That says something for the position being a logically and rational position to take.

That sounds like you are saying that we should ignore the feelings of people who react to something more than we think is justified.

"I'm sorry, Miss Jones. I know your boss yelled at you because you made a mistake in the report for the Johnson account, but my objective determination of the morality of his actions says that your response of breaking down into tears in the lunchroom is completely unjustified. So stop crying, toughen up and get back to work!"

Thats silly. We would hope that by sticking to the facts of the matter we can sort the feelings from facts. The fact is Miss Jones has been sacked. The facts around why she was sacked will also be there. Miss jones can react anyway she wants as subjetcive feelings are not right or wrong.

I've already talked about how this reduction of morality to "How many lives are saved/lost" is a terrible way to measure it.

BUt even objecting to the way this scenario can be measured shows that we need an objective measure and not base it on how people feel or personally view the situation.

And among the people actually qualified to know what they are talking about in those areas, how much disagreement is there? Virtually ALL climate scientists agree that climate change is a serious problem. I haven't looked at the statistics for the heart example, but I think it's safe to say that virtually ALL people who are trained in relevant fdields will agree with that statement as well.

So they all agree that cliamte change is a problem based on some facts. They don;t just say " I feel the weather in me bones and claimate change is real". The fact that people disagree around the fringes as to what exactly is climate change doesnt mean there is no further facts to discover. We may not havethe tech to know and may find more evdience that further suppirts the facts.

Yet when we look at the people who are qualified in areas related to morality, we see a much larger disagreement.

Not really. Most experts agree that morality is a case of therehaving to be a right and wrong answer and that most people know and agree on the core moral truths. They just disagree what that represents. The same as climate change.

As I've said countless times (and you seem intent on ignoring), the agreement on moral issues is easily explained by our sense of morality stemming from the society we are raised in, and all of us in here were raised in broadly the same kind of society.

I didnt ignore this if you remember I refuted it by
1) People from different cultures and social setting agree with the same core morals throughout the world.
2) They also say that those who disagree are objectively wrong.
3) Evidence shows that young children well before being able to be encultured know these core moral truths as well.

But we can't determine objectively how much harm will be done. Some people have their entire lives destroyed by it. Other people are able to recover almost completely. It's impossible to say, "The act of rape causes X amount of harm."

You seem to think because we cannot determine the exact amount or type of harm rape does that we cannot tell any facts about rape. We can know that rape causes certain harms and in light of that people may respond differently.

But responding differently to a violation doesnt mean there is no violation. It doesnt mean there is no measures we can find to determine that its a violation and does harm to humans.

The facts is no matter how you look at it rape causes some harms which are not good for humans. Put it thisd way, if someone said they subjectively felt that being rape is ok would not get a rapist off. All these objections are logical fallacies.

 

[stevevw]

Of course it's going to be subjective, because the situation for each person who faces the choice is different.

So your saying theres no objective criteria for euthenasia. People can kill others if they subjectively feel that they want to end their life. Thats crazy.

Why do you think it's Person A deciding on whether Person B should die?

It's Person B deciding for themselves.

Yes but thats not how it works. Person B can't just say they want to end their lives just like that and then kill themselves. Thats not what euthenasia but rather suicide. Euthenasia is a regulated practcie and illegal in many countries. But where legal it usually involves a controlled situation and usually by a doctor. Otherwise you could not say its euthenasia but some back street cowboy operation.

I think your continued failure to do so works very much against you.

I mean, you've been arguing for a long time that there are specific points of right and wrong, and yet when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is, you refuse to step up and actually do it.

If your position really was as correct as you say, surely you can think of at least ONE example of it!

I have not said that there are specific points to measure morality. I have said there are degrees like severity. That doesnt have points but rather greater or lessor of something. Its the fact that there is a greater or lesser of something and taht we are moving away from one point towards another that shows that there are objective measures.

I have shown this with the different degrees of killing. How do we measure manslaughter from 1st degree murder. We do this by measuring it against what 1st degree murder is and how manslaughter is different, accidental and without intent. The same with most other morals.

Please show me a single area of science that is claimed to be objective where there is widespread disagreement among those who are actually qualified to make comment on it.

I just gave you 3 examples. Many scientific objectives are disagreed on. Gravity for one, how the universe began, whether there is a multiverse, diets. Even Einsteins law of relativity was dispute and seen differently by his contemproaries. Most scientific ideas are disagreed until they are proven. But the disagreements are based on assumptions made about reality and not subjective views.

 

[VirOptimus]

So your saying theres no objective criteria for euthenasia. People can kill others if they subjectively feel that they want to end their life. Thats crazy.

Thats not how it works.

Yes but thats not how it works. Person B can't just say they want to end their lives just like that and then kill themselves. Thats not what euthenasia but rather suicide. Euthenasia is a regulated practcie and illegal in many countries. But where legal it usually involves a controlled situation and usually by a doctor. Otherwise you could not say its euthenasia but some back street cowboy operation.

Euthanasia is a kind of suicide.

I have not said that there are specific points to measure morality. I have said there are degrees like severity. That doesnt have points but rather greater or lessor of something. Its the fact that there is a greater or lesser of something and taht we are moving away from one point towards another that shows that there are objective measures.

What measures? In what quantity? Who gets to decide?

I have shown this with the different degrees of killing. How do we measure manslaughter from 1st degree murder. We do this by measuring it against what 1st degree murder is and how manslaughter is different, accidental and without intent. The same with most other morals.

Legal laws are not the same as morals. You seem to confuse the legal system with objective morals.

And the legal system is very different around the world.

I just gave you 3 examples. Many scientific objectives are disagreed on. Gravity for one, how the universe began, whether there is a multiverse, diets. Even Einsteins law of relativity was dispute and seen differently by his contemproaries. Most scientific ideas are disagreed until they are proven. But the disagreements are based on assumptions made about reality and not subjective views.

Thats not how science works.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But another point. Those who make this claim that there is only subjective morlaity and no objective morality also cannot demostrate that this is objectively true. So its seems that they are doing exactly the same and yet think that this is enough to show they are correct.

I think there is a burden of proof issue. We know that we have opinions and preferences about moral issues, just as we do about aesthetic issues. That much is obvious.

If there is some moral meterstick beyond human preferences, it is incumbent on the supporters of that idea to prove it. It is not my job to demonstrate its nonexistence, particularly since the supporters haven't been able to suggest where such a thing might exist.

 

[TheWhat?]

Agreed. But morally relevant objective facts are not enough to make the morality of the situation itself objective.

Have you got a source to back up the claim that a doctor doesn't bother with the subjectivity of a pain response? Because for many conditions, the type of pain (stabbing, aching, shooting, etc) and how bad the pain is can be a useful diagnostic tool. And doctors are generally concerned with reducing the pain levels in patients. When my husband cut his finger open while making dinner, we went to the hospital and they glued the cut shut, but not before they gave him some local anaesthetic injections.

I'm aware a doctor will want to know if you're experiencing any pain -- this is part of my argument. They probably don't want to be manipulated for a prescription, and they aren't concerned with opinion on what pain is. But they are not going to ignore the pain as non-real or irrelevant because it is "in the mind."

Subjective doesn't mean non-real. Likewise, there exists a set of experiences each person may go through involuntarily that each has no choice but to consider wrongs when experienced. That they are involuntary experiences and not subject to opinion is relevant. That the mind has anything to do with this is useful only to confound the matter, especially given Kant's motives in response to Hume's moral sense theory and attack against rationalism.

We know enough to know that pain can and should be treated as real. That we're still stuck in Kantian thought when it comes to morality is a matter of convenience, for some.

 

[stevevw]

Thats not how it works.

Then tell me how does it work. There must be someobjective measure.

Euthanasia is a kind of suicide.

Yeah but its controlled and has to meet a certain criteria. Thats usually an objective one.

What measures? In what quantity? Who gets to decide?

Well for killing there are degrees determined by facts about the severity and intention. So obviously a planned kill in cold blood is worse than manslaughter where someone accidently kills someone. This is relected in different penalties. Its the same for all moral truths. Its usualy decided by the facts. The fact is killing an innocent person for fun or some other subjective reason is wrong. The facts can show the person did the act.

Legal laws are not the same as morals. You seem to confuse the legal system with objective morals.

But acts like killing are based on morals. We can use the same logic and reasoning for how one type of killing is worse than another even without the legal system.

And the legal system is very different around the world.

But they all make killing wrong and will have different degrees of killing. If they don't then we in the west who claim to be the moral conscience of the world will say its an injustice that someone gets the same penalty for accidental killing as a cold blodded killer. So someone is claiming an objective moral truth here.

So if a country did not penalize killers at all we would say thats an injustice. We cannot know injustice unless we know what justice is to measure that. So we are left with saying nothing. That another cultures barbaric acts are not really wrong because morality is subjective and not about anything truthful. That would be counter intuitive and absurd.

Thats not how science works.

However it works scientists do disagree despite there being objective facts.

 

[stevevw]

One of the first things a Doctor will ask about pain is to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10. That itself shows they use some objective measure to determine whats actually happening.

They would have had 1,000s of cases where there were different pain levels. They would know that a person screaming and writhering on the ground in agony over a splinter is a bit much and someone just sitting there with a broken leg calmly must have a good pain threshold.

But the fact they know this shows they are using some objective measure. Otherwise it would be like whoever screams loudest is in the most pain.

 

[VirOptimus]

One of the first things a Doctor will ask about pain is to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10. That itself shows they use some objective measure to determine whats actually happening.

They would have had 1,000s of cases where there were different pain levels. They would know that a person screaming and writhering on the ground in agony over a splinter is a bit much and someone just sitting there with a broken leg calmly must have a good pain threshold.

But the fact they know this shows they are using some objective measure. Otherwise it would be like whoever screams loudest is in the most pain.

Show us this objective pain meassurement.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then tell me how does it work. There must be someobjective measure.

Why has there h´got to be a objective measure?

Yeah but its controlled and has to meet a certain criteria. Thats usually an objective one.

No, its not.

Well for killing there are degrees determined by facts about the severity and intention. So obviously a planned kill in cold blood is worse than manslaughter where someone accidently kills someone. This is relected in different penalties. Its the same for all moral truths. Its usualy decided by the facts. The fact is killing an innocent person for fun or some other subjective reason is wrong. The facts can show the person did the act.

Show us a moral "fact".

But acts like killing are based on morals. We can use the same logic and reasoning for how one type of killing is worse than another even without the legal system.

We can reason and debate yes, that doesnt make it "objective".

But they all make killing wrong and will have different degrees of killing. If they don't then we in the west who claim to be the moral conscience of the world will say its an injustice that someone gets the same penalty for accidental killing as a cold blodded killer. So someone is claiming an objective moral truth here.

Maybe someone is, I dont know, but that does not show that it is objective.

So if a country did not penalize killers at all we would say thats an injustice. We cannot know injustice unless we know what justice is to measure that. So we are left with saying nothing. That another cultures barbaric acts are not really wrong because morality is subjective and not about anything truthful. That would be counter intuitive and absurd.

No, its all logical and very much in line with the data that morals are not objective.

However it works scientists do disagree despite there being objective facts.

Yes, but they dont disagree with the facts.

Also, value cannot be intrinsic, for a value to exist there has to be an agent who makes it valueable.

 

[stevevw]

I think there is a burden of proof issue. We know that we have opinions and preferences about moral issues, just as we do about aesthetic issues. That much is obvious.

If there is some moral meterstick beyond human preferences, it is incumbent on the supporters of that idea to prove it. It is not my job to demonstrate its nonexistence, particularly since the supporters haven't been able to suggest where such a thing might exist.

Actually I think the burdon of proof is on the skeptic.

Moral values and duties are self-evidence and intuitive. If we see a child getting tortured, we don’t think that is how other people see the world and we should move on. No, we all think that must be stopped and justice must be done. Thats because the idea that moral facts and duties are real and objective is self-evident and thats our starting point. The burden is on the skeptic to show that our intuitions are wrong not the moral realist.

So if we had no other argument for moral realism the point of moral intuition will still remain. It is the skeptic bears the burden of proof in this instance to show us our intuitive starting point is wrong. This is the point many philosophers make theist and atheist alike.

In the sciences we decide between theories based on observations, which have an important degree of objectivity. It appears that in moral reasoning, moral intuitions play the same role which observations do in science: we test general moral principles and moral theories by seeing how their consequences conform (or fail to conform) to our moral intuitions about particular cases. Richard Boyd Essays on Moral Realism, How to be a Moral Realist Page 184.

“Our moral thinking and discourse might be systematically mistaken. But this would be a revisionary conclusion, to be accepted only as a result of extended and compelling arguemnet that the commitments of ethical objectivity are unsustainable. In the meantime we should treat the objectivity of ethics as a kind of default assumption or working hypothesis”.

This should also be obvious because we do this with every other topic.

For example, we do not assume skepticism for our experience of the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible you are a butterfly dreaming you are human but there’s no good evidence to suggest that.

So why accept a skeptical attack on intuition if there is no evidence to support it.

Possibility is not probability likewise we do not doubt the intuitive trust of our 5 senses unless we have a good reason to think that one of them has failed us.

So why should we doubt intuitive sense of moral facts unless we are given good reason by moral non-realist to do so. The burden is on the skeptic who wants to argue moral realism is false.

Unless they can give us a good reason that female mutiliation is not objectively wrong that our moral intuitions should be doubted their argument is dead in the water.

The skeptic has to mount an argument, not just assume the moral realist must bear the burden of proof and lack any reason to hold to their position.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually I think the burdon of proof is on the skeptic.

-snip-[/MEDIA]

We dont care what you think.

You say a thing exist, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Actually I think the burdon of proof is on the skeptic.

Moral values and duties are self-evidence and intuitive.

So is how Brussels sprouts taste. It is immediate to our experience, just as is our experience of moral outrage when something happens in our presence. This does not make it objective.

 

[TheWhat?]

So is how Brussels sprouts taste. It is immediate to our experience, just as is our experience of moral outrage when something happens in our presence. This does not make it objective.

Stubbing your toe is immediate to your experience. It doesn't make the pain non-real or imaginary. An assertion that it is not rendered to be objective is nonsensical.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Stubbing your toe is immediate to your experience. It doesn't make the pain non-real or imaginary.

The pain is in your head, and only accessible to the subject who experiences it. This is not to say pain doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist the same way that Sheboygan exists.

 

[TheWhat?]

The pain is in your head, and only accessible to the subject who experiences it. This is not to say pain doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist the same way that Sheboygan exists.

I agree that pain exists. It is a real phenomenon.

Once we get beyond the common conception of subjective to take a look under the hood so to speak, what becomes clear is that, as with the other senses, pain is imposed upon the self. We don't will pain to exist directly. We can cause it, but we can't imagine it to be so. Its origin is outside of the self, the internal observer. Opinion, interpretation, fabrications, etc, are all to some degree subject to the self. Pain, and likewise, involuntary experiences which we cannot will to perceive as anything other than wrongs, are imposed upon the observer from outside the internal self. It's not quite as "subjective" as common consensus would have us to believe.

 

[VirOptimus]

I agree that pain exists. It is a real phenomenon.

Once we get beyond the common conception of subjective to take a look under the hood so to speak, what becomes clear is that, as with the other senses, pain is imposed upon the self. We don't will pain to exist directly. We can cause it, but we can't imagine it to be so. Its origin is outside of the self, the internal observer. Opinion, interpretation, fabrications, etc, are all to some degree subject to the self. Pain, and likewise, involuntary experiences which we cannot will to perceive as anything other than wrongs, are imposed upon the observer from outside the internal self. It's not quite as "subjective" as common consensus would have us to believe.

Its not objective.

 

[TheWhat?]

Its not objective.

subjective (adj.)
c. 1500, "characteristic of one who is submissive or obedient," from Late Latin subiectivus "of the subject, subjective," from subiectus "lying under, below, near bordering on," figuratively "subjected, subdued"(see subject (n.)). In early Modern English as "existing, real;" more restricted meaning "existing in the mind" (the mind as "the thinking subject") is from 1707, popularized by Kant and his contemporaries; thus, in art and literature, "personal, idiosyncratic" (1767). Related: Subjectively; subjectiveness.
​

I reject your post Kantian interpretation.

Involuntary experiences we experience, involuntarily, as wrongs, are no less objective phenomena than pain.

 

[TheWhat?]

Except that wrongs exist as objective phenomena, there is simply no reason to bother with morality at all.

 

[TheWhat?]

Don't murder and rob your neighbors, you will wrong them.