Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

Wrong. Reasoning well only requires evaluating an argument's validity, not it's soundness. If I present the argument:

P1 A or B
P2 Not B

You can use proper reasoning to find the conclusion "A is true" even though the letters are meaningless and arbitrary. If I concluded that "B is true" then I would have formed an invalid argument. "A is true" is not an objective fact about the real world. Given the following argument:

P1 I ought to be happy
P2 Making others miserable causes me to be unhappy

You can use proper reasoning to find the conclusion that "I ought not make others miserable" even though P1 is not a true fact. If I concluded that "I ought to make others miserable" then I would have formed an invalid argument.

This is false and I just demonstrated why.

None of that tells us why happiness is morally good. Plus even if we say its reasoned that you should not make people miserable that is only for you. Other people may have different views about what making someone miserable means. They may do things you thing make people miserable and thats just their subjetcive view.

Proving that something is a true fact of the real world is not the same as using reasoning well. Anyone can use reason well to form valid arguments. To show an objective fact you need soundess as well. Consider:

P1 Either morality is subjective or the moon is made of cheese
P2 The moon is not made of cheese
C Morality is subjective

That is a valid argument. I used reason properly to form it. It doesn't prove a true fact about the real world because P1 is not true, not because I reasoned poorly.

so what about this

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't! Why aren't you listening to me?

I understood that you use happiness as the basis for what is good or bad. What I was trying to understand is how that can be the basis for what is right and wrong behaviour. I explained how hapopiness is subjective and different people will have different ideas of what that is. So you may be able to argue that this is how you determine right and wrong behaviour for yourself but it doesnt work as a system of norms which morlaity requires.

 

[VirOptimus]

I understood that you use happiness as the basis for what is good or bad. What I was trying to understand is how that can be the basis for what is right and wrong behaviour. I explained how hapopiness is subjective and different people will have different ideas of what that is. So you may be able to argue that this is how you determine right and wrong behaviour for yourself but it doesnt work as a system of norms which morlaity requires.

Maybe you should learn what non-objective morality entails and how that would work instead of just guessing.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then how do you explain the following claims where they state moral philosophers trust intuitions as the basis for evdience regarding morality. Why do they claim moral propositions are self-evident. Why do they state the burden of proof is on the moral skeptic (antirealist).
One of the most distinctive features of Ethical Intuitionism is its epistemology. All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument.
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

most philosophers use intuitions as evidence for their philosophical theories: they are more confident in their theories when they take themselves to have intuitions that propositions supporting those theories are true.
Intuitions are Used as Evidence in Philosophy

All your sources say is that philosophers use intuition. It doesn't say anything about intuition being a reliable source for the truth.

But I explained the reasoning for why our intuition of morality is self evdient and how we are justified to believe that our moral intuition is a good starting point for morality.

All logical fallacies are a result of our intuition. Our intuition being correct is not self-evident. We even make errors in intuition specifically about confusing subjective things for objective things. The onus is on you, because you claim that morality is objective, to prove that it is objective. There are zero excuses for shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Moral Orel]

No one has pointed anything out on this unless I missed it. Subjectivists admit that there is no objective basis for morality. That in itself is enough as anything they claim about morality is going to be subjective. Subjective is not about whether something is really wrong, its just a psychological statement from the subject, a feeling or preference.

So if we have no way of declaring murder as objectively wrong then how is this objection wrong.

Because you think it's an objection! It isn't an objection to anything. You're simply describing an aspect of subjective morality. That you think it'd be a bummer if it was true doesn't mean it ain't true. You keep pointing out the things you don't like about morality being subjective as if that matters to any argument. It doesn't.

 

[Moral Orel]

None of that tells us why happiness is morally good.

Because it isn't really. Remember, we're just assuming it is because we want to be happy.

Plus even if we say its reasoned that you should not make people miserable that is only for you.

No. It's a fact that people are happier when they're surrounded by other happy people.

Other people may have different views about what making someone miserable means. They may do things you thing make people miserable and thats just their subjetcive view.

No. You experience other people being miserable whether you think they should be or not.

 

[Moral Orel]

I explained how hapopiness is subjective and different people will have different ideas of what that is.

And you were wrong:

If we don't understand how people are made to be generally happier than other ways, then all of psychology is a farce. What causes happiness in humans is fact.

Yes I agree

Start learning from your mistakes so that we don't have to keep rehashing the same things over and over again. Don't tell me "I agree" and then turn around and say the opposite all over again.

 

[Moral Orel]

so what about this

Premise 1: If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
Premise 2: Epistemic facts do exist
Conclusion 1: Moral facts do exist.
Premise 3: If moral facts do exist, then realism is true.
Conclusion 2: Moral realism is true.

Epistemic facts don't exist. I demonstrated this with the proof I already provided. You cannot rationally justify any "ought" statement.

 

[stevevw]

You are.

I may not have stated this to you but I have mentioned it a number of times on this thread that I am not saying that people cannot know what right and wrong behaviour is. But rather that there is not objective basis for measuring their ideas of what that call morality here #1371, and here #1609.

Since this has nothing to do with what I said, I still have every reason to believe my assertion.

Yes but like I said other people will have made different assertions for why something is good or bad behaviour. That cannot be the basis for a unified moral system as it invites different views of what is right and wrong to compete at the same time all as being just as valid as each other.

I enforce my subjective views on people all the time. We've been over this. But every time I prove you wrong, you just pretend it never happened and then repeat things you know are false.

No I dont pretend to ignore what you said. As far as I remember I gave an objection which you havnt addressed. For example ethicists claim that morality is different to preferences or feelings. Morality matters more than preferences or feelings. So preferences or feelings don't equate to how morality works.

As I linked it would be silly and illogical to say that we are glad we were not born in an Asian country otherwise we might prefer noodles. But it does make sense to say we are glad we were not born in early America because we would have to support slavery.

It makes sense to condemn people for immoral behaviour like child abuse or lying or if someone takes advantage of another as we have seen how people protest and condemn people for misbehaving on social media and having marches in the streets or protesting to big business or governments that this behaviour should stop and is objectively wrong.

But it would not make any sense nor be logical to say that we protest, condemn and claim that behaviour is wrong to do if someone expresses a preference or feeling that someone elses is doing something they hate. We never see people protesting about they hate the flavor of strawberry ice-cream.

So what I am saying isthat your way of determining right and wrong behaviour is baseless. It may matter to you but it cannot matter the same way to others. You cannot make someone else conform to what you hate as "Hate" is subjective and doesnt apply to anyone outside you in any objective way.

 

[stevevw]

Epistemic facts don't exist. I demonstrated this with the proof I already provided. You cannot rationally justify any "ought" statement.

So when you reply to my post with an arguement for subjectivism you are assuming epistemic duties have to be present in our debate. You will assume I ought to not lie and misrepresent your arguement. That I cannot use logical fallacies as you have stated. That I should be honest. We both will prescribe epistemic duties such as these and believe they should be kept and abided by.

But thats the issue. Why should I or anyone abide by these epistemic facts if its subjective or relative.

So if you are a moral skeptic or anti-objectivists and you have ever claimed someone has done something objectively wrong in misrepresenting your argument then you have assumed epistemic virtues and duties while arguing such duties are either subjective or not real.

You are prescribing that honesty should be objectively binding in philosophical debates. However, this epistemic value is linked to the moral virtue of honesty so you cannot reject objectivism (realism).

You cannot reject moral objectivism if you wish to debate your position and assume it is wrong for me to misrepresent your argument. Since we agree there are epistemic duties and values used in discussions we therefore agree moral duties and facts are binding and objective.

Since in real lived moral situations such as in debates on morality we agree there are epistemic duties and values used in discussions we therefore agree moral duties and facts are objective.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe you should learn what non-objective morality entails and how that would work instead of just guessing.

Thats a good question as it approaches the issue from another angle. But are you alluding to something like a theocracy.

 

[Moral Orel]

So when you reply to my post with an arguement for subjectivism you are assuming epistemic duties have to be present in our debate.

I'm not going to read the rest of your post because your first sentence is false. And I'm sure you have a lot to say about your incorrect assumption.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats a good question as it approaches the issue from another angle. But are you alluding to something like a theocracy.

...

no, but thanks for the QED!

 

[stevevw]

And you were wrong:

You said
If we don't understand how people are made to be generally happier than other ways, then all of psychology is a farce. What causes happiness in humans is fact.

I replied
Yes I agree and that means that there is an objective to make that claim i.e. we can reason that there are some ways to behave morally than other ways to behave. For that to happen we need some objective base to measure what behaviour is better than other behaviour or (happier than other ways that make happiness)?

But saying "if people don't understand this" means they are morally wrong under subjective moral system is irrelevant as its impossible because it may be their subjective view about what is important for happiness and it cannot be wrong.

But what you have done is quote mine the first 2 words of my reply out of context. If you include the rest of my reply I said that psychology is a science and it finds objective facts about what makes people happy or not. This is not subjective. So sure if you want toi use psychological science as the basis then thats OK. Thats one way of having a objective basis.

But it doesnt follow that everyone is using psychology as their basis either. Some won't even understand that. They may use another basis say money and its not wrong for them to do that under subjectivism. So you cannot use psychology as a basis for right and wrong behaviour regarding happiness as that is using an objective basis and doesnt work for subjective morlaity.

Your assuming psychology as the basis for everyone when it doesnt follow that everyone uses psychology as their basis. Whether people understand psychology and what it represents about happiness is irrelevant under a subjective system because theres no objective rational. People may choose to use evolution as their basis or facism. It doesnt matter as its just a view, opinion.

start learning from your mistakes so that we don't have to keep rehashing the same things over and over again. Don't tell me "I agree" and then turn around and say the opposite all over again.

Well if the above is an example then I have to be careful about people misrepresenting my arguement in the first place. Any percieved mistake is going to be based on a misrepresentation.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- Any percieved mistake is going to be based on a misrepresentation.

Yes, because you can never be wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

Morality matters more than preferences or feelings. So preferences or feelings don't equate to how morality works.

The things we feel the most strongly about we call morals... And that proves morality is objective? That we feel more strongly about them?!

As I linked it would be silly and illogical to say that we are glad we were not born in an Asian country otherwise we might prefer noodles. But it does make sense to say we are glad we were not born in early America because we would have to support slavery.

It doesn't make sense. If you were born back then, you wouldn't feel the way you do right now about slavery, so it would be a non-issue. But note that you are "glad". A feeling, and a statement that you prefer to live in today's times rather than past times. That doesn't help your case for moral objectivity.

If morality was objective you could support it with formal logic. I demonstrated why you can't with my proof. You attempted and failed, thereby supporting my proof. What I want to know, though, is why do you believe it's objective without knowing any objective reasoning why it's true? After realizing that what reasoning you did have was incomplete at best, why do you hold so steadfast that your position is immovable?

The reason is because the illusion of objective morality is a result of the Appeal to Emotion fallacy. The most persuasive of all fallacies.

 

[Moral Orel]

I said that psychology is a science and it finds objective facts about what makes people happy or not.

You did not say that. What you did say was:

it may be their subjective view about what is important for happiness and it cannot be wrong.

Once again, you have not been misrepresented. Your statements are just repeatedly false.

 

[stevevw]

...

no, but thanks for the QED!

Sorry I just realised I misread your post. I thought you said have I considered an objective moral system would require. Ok the opposite. I have considered it as far as a non-objective system like with subjective morality. But this cannot work for morality unless there is some sort of anchor to determine right and wrong behaviour. Thus subjectivists use "Happiness, empathy, human wellbeing, social norms, ect as the basis. But this is just another way of having an objective basis.

As for other ethical theories like Nihilism I am not sure. Though if morality needs some objective basis then this would be counted out as well.

 

[Moral Orel]

So sure if you want toi use psychological science as the basis then thats OK. Thats one way of having a objective basis.

Psychology isn't the basis. I'm not trying to concoct an objective morality; that isn't possible. The basis is "I ought to be happy" which I know cannot be true (the opposite cannot be true either, so who cares). Psychology gives me the facts that are useful for promoting my own happiness. Psychology isn't the basis. It's a tool.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sorry I just realised I misread your post. I thought you said have I considered an objective moral system would require. Ok the opposite. I have considered it as far as a non-objective system like with subjective morality. But this cannot work for morality unless there is some sort of anchor to determine right and wrong behaviour. Thus subjectivists use "Happiness, empathy, human wellbeing, social norms, ect as the basis. But this is just another way of having an objective basis.

As for other ethical theories like Nihilism I am not sure. Though if morality needs some objective basis then this would be counted out as well.

It can work and it does work (as thats how reality works).

But again, you ”considering it” is not the same as understanding it as you obviously dont.