Where is the Objective Morality?

[essentialsaltes]

If we looked into it, we'd probably find some objective relationship between the odor of brussels sprouts and the typical or even idiosyncratic human responses.

The fact that many (even most) people find Brussels sprouts smelly does not tell us anything about the objective fact of the matter (if there were one).

We might learn some objective facts about the human olfactory system. But nothing about Brussels sprouts.

 

[durangodawood]

The fact that many (even most) people find Brussels sprouts smelly does not tell us anything about the objective fact of the matter (if there were one).

We might learn some objective facts about the human olfactory system. But nothing about Brussels sprouts.

We'd learn about various sprouty chemicals and how they trigger a human response, and so we'd be justified in calling them "smelly" to certain humans.

 

[childeye 2]

Hilda has an abortion following a rape.

Bob judges that Hilda's abortion was not immoral.
Kate judges that Hilda's abortion was immoral.

People have different moral judgments of the same objective facts.

If moral judgments are themselves objective facts, in principle, we should be able to determine whether Bob or Kate is the one in line with the objective fact of the matter. No one seems to be able to offer a method for making this objective determination.

There can be multiple true answers depending on the circumstances. Using semantics, abortion carries a negative connotation. No one wants an unwanted pregnancy is objectively true, even for Kate. Kate probably feels that Hilda would have eventually loved the child regardless.

Objectively speaking it's Hilda's life, and no one else's problem since morally/immorally the community as a whole is unaffected either way. If someone feels one of these choices has to be wicked, then they should show where the wickedness is. But before they do, they should also consider whether the wickedness is in those who must find fault in others.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We'd learn about various sprouty chemicals and how they trigger a human response, and so we'd be justified in calling them "smelly" to certain humans.

To be objective, we want something that does not rely on human judgments and perceptions.

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

All of these smells and feelings of moral outrage are perceptions of sentient subjects.

 

[Astrid]

From what you say here it sounds like you do understand it somewhat. You're expressing the same sentiments that I did. You seem to read love others... and immediately think of loving a rapist along with everyone else. But I can understand why your mind immediately goes there, even though I have never been raped.

prin·ci·ple
/ˈprinsəpəl/

noun

1. 1.
   a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

As pertains to any moral principle, there is no expectation for you to love a rapist whatsoever. It is a moral/immoral equation used to determine objective morality/immorality from a subjective understanding of what is moral and immoral. "Love others" implies the community as a whole. If it's telling you anything, it's telling you what is right and wrong behavior as a community.

"As you would want to be loved". This applies to the one reasoning upon it. One must ask themself, How, would I want to be loved? For example, when applied in the scenario you present, one would ask themself, "Would I want to be raped?" My answer is NO and so is yours. So, the conclusion is, "It's wrong to rape others" because that is not subjectively perceived as love by you, or me. To "Love others", we must not rape others, including rapists.

You are making it too complicated.

I was merely showing it cannot be made a general / universal
rule, let alone an absolute.

He is the worst but far from the only one i dont and
will not ever love, nor, ftm be made to feel its a moral
lapse on my part that I do not.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There can be multiple true answers depending on the circumstances.

The circumstances have been provided. 'Hilda has an abortion following a rape.'

If it can have multiple true answers, it is not objective.

From the link in my reply just above.

According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsehood of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons.

If Bob and Kate can have different valid opinions, then we're not talking about objective morality.

 

[durangodawood]

To be objective, we want something that does not rely on human judgments and perceptions.

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

All of these smells and feelings of moral outrage are perceptions of sentient subjects.

Independent from individual subjectivity.... Without bias caused by a sentient subject.

Species level investigations and statistical methods dont depend on any individual. If most humans consider something smelly, then its an objective fact that its smelly to humans.

Next thing youll tell me its a subjective opinion that humans feel pain when they touch the hot stove.

 

[childeye 2]

You are making it too complicated.

I was merely showing it cannot be made a general / universal
rule, let alone an absolute.

Respectfully, We, came to the same conclusion that to love others as ourselves, it's objectively wrong to rape others. You need to show rape is moral for the equation to not be universal.

He is the worst but far from the only one i dont and
will not ever love, nor, ftm be made to feel its a moral
lapse on my part that I do not.

The equation says it's your call, so it can only be you who makes yourself feel it's a moral lapse. It's only you who can forgive the wrongs done to you. That's an objective morality.

 

[Astrid]

Respectfully, We, came to the same conclusion that to love others as ourselves, it's objectively wrong to rape others. You need to show rape is moral for the equation to not be universal.


The equation says it's your call, so it can only be you who makes yourself feel it's a moral lapse. It's only you who can forgive the wrongs done to you. That's an objective morality.

So we ate to only love others who we find to be moral?

Also, your thing of what constitutes objrvvtibe morality' i see only subjective in it.

Ive yet to see any example of objective morality .

 

[childeye 2]

So we ate to only love others who we find to be moral?

I'm going to respond assuming you mean "are".

The equation is not even about judging others. The equation is about judging what is right or wrong objectively. Yes, it implies that we as a community should not allow immoral behavior, but that is an objective view. Subjectively, Love is transitory, able to change from wrath to forgiveness. That is, one day you may forgive, which is only yours to do out of your love. It's your call, not anyone else's.

The mind reasons on fundamental dichotomies such as good/bad, true/false, knowledge/ignorance, reality/unreality, sane/insane, etc. These are perceived as positive/negative in our comprehension. Objectivity must assume the positive comes first in any reasonable proposition which is meant to draw a distinction between positive and negative.

For example, when we have a circumstance where we know something is true and something is false, but the false is posing as something true, we must assume objectively that the truth exists before the lie because the lie only exists to subvert the truth. Hence there has to be an objective Truth and it cannot possibly be immorality.

However, in the case of a subjective view, it is reasoned that, objectively speaking, the opposite is true concerning this, because ignorance precedes knowledge in every subjective view, which is why it's subjective.

I'm going to cut this short. What I'm getting at is that since we must assume that Love is the positive, then the person who raped you is going to one day regret what he did and it will burden him and steal his joy every day of his life, even because morality came first and was betrayed through immorality which produced hatred for him, in you. This necessarily means that when that regret comes, he will then know something he didn't know when he did the act, that had he known then he would not have done it in the first place. If you ponder this, you may find your way to forgive and move on. I sincerely and literally weep for you, and the joy that was once innocent that is lost in this world.

 

[Astrid]

I'm going to respond assuming you mean "are".

The equation is not even about judging others. The equation is about judging what is right or wrong objectively. Yes, it implies that we as a community should not allow immoral behavior, but that is an objective view. Subjectively, Love is transitory, able to change from wrath to forgiveness. That is, one day you may forgive, which is only yours to do out of your love. It's your call, not anyone else's.

The mind reasons on fundamental dichotomies such as good/bad, true/false, knowledge/ignorance, reality/unreality, sane/insane, etc. These are perceived as positive/negative in our comprehension. Objectivity must assume the positive comes first in any reasonable proposition which is meant to draw a distinction between positive and negative.

For example, when we have a circumstance where we know something is true and something is false, but the false is posing as something true, we must assume objectively that the truth exists before the lie because the lie only exists to subvert the truth. Hence there has to be an objective Truth and it cannot possibly be immorality.

However, in the case of a subjective view, it is reasoned that, objectively speaking, the opposite is true concerning this, because ignorance precedes knowledge in every subjective view, which is why it's subjective.

I'm going to cut this short. What I'm getting at is that since we must assume that Love is the positive, then the person who raped you is going to one day regret what he did and it will burden him and steal his joy every day of his life, even because morality came first and was betrayed through immorality which produced hatred for him, in you. This necessarily means that when that regret comes, he will then know something he didn't know when he did the act, that had he known then he would not have done it in the first place. If you ponder this, you may find your way to forgive and move on. I sincerely and literally weep for you, and the joy that was once innocent that is lost in this world.

We wont wotk out fine points of objective /subjective, and thats ok.
After much effort we'd prolly find there never really was a difference

You talk elsewhere if Christian values and we really dont have
so much incommon. Christian "Love" has no counterpart,
no meaning to us.
"God is love" is just words to me.
Also the dichotomy thing. Very few things would
be considered to be all good or all bad. Life is far
more subtle than that.

On "forgive", never. I see westerners coming out first thing
to say they forgive the most hideous crimes.
I dont know if it is real or not.
Doesnt matter. From me, never.

We understand well that hate corrodes the vessel
that holds it.
I dont hate him anymore, no more than I hate the
typhoon that damaged our home.

Id like to think he would come around and his
conscience will make him pay. Even become a good
person and then I dont think he even needs to pay more
I deeply doubt that is possible.

Anyone who saw me afterwards would know the man was a sadist,
a sick evil man whose pleasure was to hurt me. I am lucky to have
survived.

No love, no forgive. I trust that makes sense.

I appreciate your words of compassion. Im not seeking them,
just saying how it is. But thank you.

 

[J_B_]

Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.

I simply want to know where it is.

If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?

I love this question. I'm a little late to the party, but I just wanted to make a note that this is a great question.

 

[Astrid]

I love this question. I'm a little late to the party, but I just wanted to make a note that this is a great question.

Al Gore has a lockbox for such things. Ive heard about that

 

[J_B_]

I posted this in the other thread, and it's too good to not post again. From

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather


Not one particle of morality either. (me)
​

Within the material universe? Yeah, I could probably agree with that.

 

[J_B_]

Al Gore has a lockbox for such things. Ive heard about that

I don't get it.

 

[Astrid]

I don't get it.

Its 9k, i probably dont either.Years ago al gore ran for us president.
Said he would put social security payments in a lockbox.

Metaphorical and nonsensical.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Species level investigations and statistical methods dont depend on any individual.

It's no better than a poll, really. Adding a bunch of subjective views together doesn't make it objective.

If most humans consider something smelly, then its an objective fact that its smelly to humans.

Most humans perceive it as smelly? But we're trying to find out what the fact of the matter is.

It is an objective fact that abortion is acceptable under some circumstances to most Americans. This tells us nothing whatsoever about whether abortion 'really is' objectively morally acceptable or not. Even supposing that there is a way it really is.

Next thing youll tell me its a subjective opinion that humans feel pain when they touch the hot stove.

Pain is in your head. It's not in the stove. The wrongness you intuit is in your head, it is not in the act.

The smell is in your brain, not in the Brussels sprout.

Next thing you'll tell me it's an objective fact that these green lines are of different lengths. Because that's what most people perceive, and there is a rational explanation for it in the way the human visual system works in the brain.

 

[durangodawood]

It's no better than a poll, really. Adding a bunch of subjective views together doesn't make it objective.

Most humans perceive it as smelly? But we're trying to find out what the fact of the matter is.

The original question of yours was like: are brussels sprouts objectively smelly? "Smelly" is a certain relationship between the observer and the object. Thats what it means. Its not some condition of a sprout in isolation. So if that relationship exists for most people, then "people typically find sprouts smelly" is an objective fact of human experience.

It is an objective fact that abortion is acceptable under some circumstances to most Americans. This tells us nothing whatsoever about whether abortion 'really is' objectively morally acceptable or not. Even supposing that there is a way it really is.

Same issue here. "Morally acceptable" is just nonsense without a subject who accepts or rejects. It literally doesnt mean anything in isolation.

Next thing you'll tell me it's an objective fact that these green lines are of different lengths. Because that's what most people perceive, and there is a rational explanation for it in the way the human visual system works in the brain.

Now youre switching gears and asking about thing itself. Not comparable. As I said before "smelly" is about a relationship between observer and observed. And the occurrence of that relationship can be an objective fact in the world, studied as a matter of animal behavior.

Asking about the actual length of the line is more like asking does a sprout off-gas toluene or something.

 

[childeye 2]

According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsehood of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons

I agree that the truth or falsehood of typical moral judgments doesn't depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. But that is meant to say that All subjective views experience the same objective morality, even though they don't create it. It is not saying that any/every perception based on personal feelings or beliefs from the subjective view cannot be objective.

This is why God is referred to as Light in scripture. It is even because there is an objective morality, that is how there are subjective views of an objective morality, or something morally true for all. I must assume all know what kindness is, objectively speaking. Where is it? I know it when I see it. I know it when I practice it. I know it's good and not wicked. I know I didn't create it, but I know I can reflect it, or not.

If Bob and Kate can have different valid opinions, then we're not talking about objective morality.

The topic is in the negative to begin with. That alone testifies to the objective morality all by itself. As seen here "An unwanted pregnancy is never wanted by anyone". So, concerning different valid options. Suppose I say there are two valid subjective opinions that are both right in their own aspects. That one is brighter than the other.

The problem is that only one is realized in this scenario and it would not be realized if it had gone the other way. Bob's opinion that Hilda should be excused for getting an abortion is the only one that is a reality. Therefore, the only productive course in my subjective view is forgiveness and understanding. Kate's opinion that Hilda would have eventually come to love the baby, is not a reality, but neither is it disproven. Bob doesn't necessarily disagree with Kate. That is to say Bob wouldn't complain if Hilda had kept the baby. It's unclear that Kate disagrees with Bob that it's excusable, only that she thinks it would have served Hilda better to keep the baby. She might view abortion as immoral, but now forgivable after the fact.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's bizarre seeing people interpret internal feelings as a way to determine objective facts.

"Bizarre"? I dunno about that. I mean, it doesn't work, but it's pretty normal. We generally have to talk ourselves out of doing it because it comes so naturally.

I've pointed out this scenario a few times in all these "objective morality" threads, so maybe you've already seen it. But have you ever tasted something, enjoyed it a lot, then shared it with someone else who hated it? I bet your initial gut response was to say, "What are you, crazy?" As if the other person could taste something incorrectly! I think we've all done it or something similar. Like if someone said "The Godfather" was a terrible movie. Or Adele has an awful voice. Or, well, you get it.

Sure, we look back and analyze what's going on and see how perception is a subjective thing and all. But naturally, our minds want to make facts out of feelings. That's where objective morality comes from. It's one big Appeal to Emotion fallacy! Come to think of it, we probably wouldn't have given that specific brand of fallacy a name if it wasn't so common.