Where is the Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

You dont seem to understand what a moral stance is.

It is based on what "Stance" means.

A moral stance is when, given a situation or type of situation, you have arrived at a conclusion in moral reasoning that leads you to believe there is only one set of morally permissible actions to take.

So what is a moral stance.

 

[VirOptimus]

It is based on what "Stance" means.

A moral stance is when, given a situation or type of situation, you have arrived at a conclusion in moral reasoning that leads you to believe there is only one set of morally permissible actions to take.

So what is a moral stance.

To have an moral agency and an opinion on what is moraly preferable.

 

[stevevw]

To have an moral agency and an opinion on what is moraly preferable.

So we have more than one meaning.

Preferring something is hardly taking a stance because its about the subject and doesn't hold any truth position independent from the subject. When we take a stance we are taking a moral position as opposed to other positions. Its a declaration of what is morally wrong in the world.

So with that people will naturally want to know why the person is taking such a strong position. So we have to reason why we take that position as opposed to another position which requires us to justify that position. This is when we reason why and appeal to objective facts beyond our subjective thinking.

 

[NotreDame]

In certain cases, yes, I think I can have an accurate understanding of reality(maybe not all aspects of reality, but the aspects that I’m focused on at any given moment).

Do you think it’s impossible to accurately understand reality?

Or this way: objective morality can only exist if a person has/acts on accurate understanding of reality.

That defies the very meaning of “objective.”

Objective: “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts…
existing outside the mind; based on facts that can be proved objective reality” Oxford dictionary.

That which is “objective” is true, reality, factual, independent of our existence. The speed of light is “objective,” as its speed isn’t and doesn’t depend on our existence or an accurate and correct understanding of its speed by any of us. Just as objects tossed in the air on earth A) fall back down at a rate is B.) 9.8 meters per second squared.

That those objects fall back down and at a certain rate isn’t dependent on our existence, or our thoughts. The human race could disappear tomorrow and all else being equal, objects will fall and at that rate on this planet devoid of Homo Sapiens.

So, if there is an “objective” morality, it’s existence isn’t and doesn’t depend on us or our understanding.

Which, I add, there’s no evidence for this morality and presently no way to demonstrate its existence should objective morality exist.

 

[NotreDame]

I think its more than that. We don't just reasoned these trutrhs based on being true by default. They are values in themselves and stand independent of other things that give them value.

That is circular reasoning. Whether they “are values in themselves and stand independent of other things that give them value” is the very issue being debated and argued.

Which, I’ll add, there’s no evidence to demonstrate this “value” as objective, where objective refers to a state of affairs that exist, is factual, reality, without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts.

We actually live these truths and thats why we are here to realize their value. Though they are abstract values they are made real in our lives and they are necessary for us to live and be human. Its not rocket science. We all know these truths and live by these truths.

Oh, “we” you say “all know these truths”? And you may speak for the entirety of humanity on what basis? Speculating what all of humanity agrees upon as true is unpersuasive. Especially here where you’ve encountered some people who disagree and aren’t within your “all” category.

Now, that a value is “abstract” but “made real in our lives” doesn’t demonstrate the value as objective truth or objective reality. Democracy, capitalism, Marxism, socialism, equality, justice, are abstract ideas but manifest existence in our reality as structures and institutions based on how human beings perceive them and understood them in their minds. The institutions, structures, and actions we associate with those abstract ideas vanishes without us. Whether those abstract ideas exist independently of us, and whether our understanding of them accurately reflected their objective existence, cannot be known as there isn’t any evidence of their existence independent of our own existence.

 

[stevevw]

That is circular reasoning. Whether they “are values in themselves and stand independent of other things that give them value” is the very issue being debated and argued.

Which, I’ll add, there’s no evidence to demonstrate this “value” as objective, where objective refers to a state of affairs that exist, is factual, reality, without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts.

under this logic nothing can be regarded as objective without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts.

Oh, “we” you say “all know these truths”? And you may speak for the entirety of humanity on what basis?

The reseach shows that we are born with the basics of moral truths.

researchers have found babies as young as six months old already make moral judgments, and they think we may be born with a moral code hard-wired into our brains.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html

Speculating what all of humanity agrees upon as true is unpersuasive. Especially here where you’ve encountered some people who disagree and aren’t within your “all” category.

Yet all humanity agrees with the core principles of moral truths and this is reflected in the fact we make them like laws or truths through Human Rights and national laws that uphold human life as valuable. If people disagree then they are objectively wrong and we declare that by the fact that we don't allow for disageements to change this fact as these Rights and laws are inalienable.

Otherwise why force everyone to conform with one set of moral truths rather than be open to subjective opinions about what is morally right or wrong. Morality is a human enterprise and it is how we implement moral into being truths that make it a reality.

Now, that a value is “abstract” but “made real in our lives” doesn’t demonstrate the value as objective truth or objective reality. Democracy, capitalism, Marxism, socialism, equality, justice, are abstract ideas but manifest existence in our reality as structures and institutions based on how human beings perceive them and understood them in their minds.

Not sure about the other issues like democracy, socialism ect as they are not about morality. But values like Justice and equality are moral truths beyond the subjective mind. As C.S.Lewis mentions making objections to the Injusticves in this world there has to be some knowledge and objective basis for Justice. You cannot know a stick is bent unless you first know what a straight one looks like.

By appealing to Justice we are appealing to a moral truth that there is such a thing as truth in Justice in the world that is beyond the subjective thinking of what people think it is. The same with equality. This is an inalienable natural born right which is not subjective to relative/subjective opinions created by the subject.

The institutions, structures, and actions we associate with those abstract ideas vanishes without us.

As it would do with other realities we make.

Whether those abstract ideas exist independently of us, and whether our understanding of them accurately reflected their objective existence, cannot be known as there isn’t any evidence of their existence independent of our own existence.

Once again under this logic nothing can be regarded as objective without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts. Yet we do make certain abstracts like facts that affect our reality which makes them real. We do make equality a fact independent of our own subjective experience.

How else is these abstract ideas verified but from the very way we as humans make them facts independent of us. WE created that reality just like we create and believe other facts as being true.

So let me ask you as I see your a Christian and obviously believe that Gods moral laws are facts. So how are Gods moral laws/truth expressed in reality. Is the Bible correct in saying we all have Gods laws written on our heart.

Not that this proves moral truths. BUt it certainly would suggest that as humans we know of these moral truths and thus express this in the way we act and react to moral situations through our conscience ie we know the law even before the law was made through our conscience which either condemns us or defends us morally.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yet all humanity agrees... If people disagree...

 

[stevevw]

oops I did it again. That damn Logic. Luckily logic alone cannot account for morality.

What do I mean by "morality isn't logical"? I mean in the same sense that mathematics is logical but literary criticism isn't: the "reasoning" we use to think about morality doesn't resemble logical reasoning. All systems of logic, that I'm aware of, have a concept of proof and a method of verifying with high degree of certainty whether an argument constitutes a proof.

As long as the logic is consistent (and we have good reason to think that many of them are), once we verify a proof we can accept its conclusion without worrying that there may be another proof that makes the opposite conclusion. With morality though, we have no such method, and people all the time make moral arguments that can be reversed or called into question by other moral arguments.
Morality Isn't Logical - LessWrong

But an observation. I have noticed when debating this topic that everyone appeals to the same ilogical arguement of proving morality through the way humans act morally though agreement/disagreement as though this is sufficent. Such as morality is conditioned by society and therefore this proves its subjective. Or because people disagree morally there can be no objective morals.

So it seems that there is something to how morality works in that its a human enterprise and therefore humans make moral reality. You also have to remember that moral agreement is not based on blindly or whimsically agreeing to something but rationally agreeing to something being moral truth. To do that there needs to be some indenendent measure outside the subject.

 

[NotreDame]

How do you know we don't all know morals. Research shows that we are born with the basic knowledge of morality.

The Moral Life of Babies
It turns out instead that the right theory of our moral lives has two parts. It starts with what we are born with, and this is surprisingly rich: babies are moral animals.
The Moral Life of Babies

I am not saying we all live by morals. I am saying that as we are all born with the basics of morality this is reflected in the way we live. We don't have to be moral as we have free will but the fact that we make morality normative and create laws and Rights around morals we actually create moral reality by doing this.

So its the fact that we act as hostile witnesses against subjective morality and become crown witnesses for moral truths which must have some bearing on what is morally real or not.

BUt this arguement from moral difference or disagreement is a logical fallacy. It doesn't follow that because people disagree or that morals have changed means there is no moral truths. Let me ask you do you think morality has changed for the better.

But your evidence for a morality that isn’t subjective, thereby suggesting objective (objective meaning it isn’t dependent on us to exist, to be factual or reality) is “we are all born with the basics of morality this is reflected in the way we live. We don't have to be moral as we have free will but the fact that we make morality normative and create laws and Rights around morals we actually create moral reality by doing this.”

Okay, so rationally then, the “this is reflected in the way we live” logic includes observing that the “way we live” varies and has varied for thousands of years.

In Ancient Greece and Roman, pedophilia was a common practice and not perceived or understood as immoral. Rather, pedophilia, at least in Ancient Greece, occur in the context of a “comjng of age” of males in their teens as they had a adult male sexual partner grooming them for adulthood and same sex acts was an inherent part of it.

Same sex marriage and same sex relationships have existed as commonly acceptable, morally appropriate behavior as far back as Mesopotamia.

Human sacrifice, female genitalia mutilation, slavery, interracial marriage, sex discrimination, racial discrimination, genocide, have all found moral acceptance at one time in the annals of human history, morally reproved at other times, and simultaneous moral acceptance and moral rejection among different nations, cultures, and people.

That is “reflected in the way” humans have existence for over thousands of years. This variance, within your logic, undermines the idea morality isn’t subjective, as this variance reflects that “we are all born with different “basics of morality” as that is reflected in different moral attitudes. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If morality is only relative/subjective then by doing this we are contradicting ourselves by forcing everyone to conform to these norms as the very idea of relativism and subjectivism is that there are no moral truth that everyone can be forced to conform with. But rather everyone has their own moral truth.

So? That scenario plausibly is true, a fact, as human beings since perhaps our existence have been “forcing everyone to conform” to certain “norms,” despite that those norms may be or perhaps are in fact “relative” and subjective. Christians and Christianity certainly have believed this as true in relation to Islam and Muslims (some at least) cramming Islam down peoples’ throats as
Sharia law is forced upon society.

Indeed, some of the early apostles attempted to cram down the throat of Gentiles their Jewish morals as it pertained to food, prompting a rebuke from Paul in which Paul called baloney that the Gentiles were subject to the dietary moral laws of the OT.

Which, by the way, there has been prevalent movement, across the globe, in many nations, the U.S. included, to move away from a moral based code of laws and a society consumed with morality. Same sex marriage, same sex relations, gender identity, is what it is now, it’s not immoral, it’s not necessarily moral, it just is, and why should anyone else care is the increasing sentiment. Same for abortion, birth control, marriage out of wedlock, etcetera.

 

[stevevw]

But your evidence for a morality that isn’t subjective, thereby suggesting objective (objective meaning it isn’t dependent on us to exist, to be factual or reality) is “we are all born with the basics of morality this is reflected in the way we live. We don't have to be moral as we have free will but the fact that we make morality normative and create laws and Rights around morals we actually create moral reality by doing this.”

Okay, so rationally then, the “this is reflected in the way we live” logic includes observing that the “way we live” varies and has varied for thousands of years.

In Ancient Greece and Roman, pedophilia was a common practice and not perceived or understood as immoral. Rather, pedophilia, at least in Ancient Greece, occur in the context of a “comjng of age” of males in their teens as they had a adult male sexual partner grooming them for adulthood and same sex acts was an inherent part of it.

Same sex marriage and same sex relationships have existed as commonly acceptable, morally appropriate behavior as far back as Mesopotamia.

Human sacrifice, female genitalia mutilation, slavery, interracial marriage, sex discrimination, racial discrimination, genocide, have all found moral acceptance at one time in the annals of human history, morally reproved at other times, and simultaneous moral acceptance and moral rejection among different nations, cultures, and people.

That is “reflected in the way” humans have existence for over thousands of years. This variance, within your logic, undermines the idea morality isn’t subjective, as this variance reflects that “we are all born with different “basics of morality” as that is reflected in different moral attitudes. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Except the idea that moral truths can be denied or rationalized away according to subjective thinking and therefore people disagree does not mean there are no moral truths. The fact that we can look back on all these past moral acts and claim they are immoral shows that we have gained a better understanding of moral truths. We now condemn as objectively wrong things like genocide, female genitalia mutilation, slavery shows this. You cannot improve morality unless there is some moral truth to measure what is moral or not.

So? That scenario plausibly is true, a fact, as human beings since perhaps our existence have been “forcing everyone to conform” to certain “norms,” despite that those norms may be or perhaps are in fact “relative” and subjective.

Therefore we act in contradiction to relative/subjective morals which shows deep down we do really know that there is a core set of moral truths that stand independent of relative/subjetcive morality. Objective morality can accommodate subjectivity of morals but subjective morality cannot accommodate objectivity of morals.

Christians and Christianity certainly have believed this as true in relation to Islam and Muslims (some at least) cramming Islam down peoples’ throats as
Sharia law is forced upon society.

But this is more a reflection of subjective/relative morality because when there is no moral truth a void is left and this is filled by whoever gains power. The so called objectives of religions is merely a subjective claim as morality is a rational enterprise and because morality is between humans and based on what is morally best behaviour rationalizing atrocities in the name of objetcive morality is impossible.

Indeed, some of the early apostles attempted to cram down the throat of Gentiles their Jewish morals as it pertained to food, prompting a rebuke from Paul in which Paul called baloney that the Gentiles were subject to the dietary moral laws of the OT.

Yes because Paul was pointing out the moral truth that it wasn't what people ate that made them rightious but what was in their hearts. Very consistent with moral truths. If this was under a subjective system then what you eat would be of no consequence as preferences for food cannot be morally wrong.

Which, by the way, there has been prevalent movement, across the globe, in many nations, the U.S. included, to move away from a moral based code of laws and a society consumed with morality. Same sex marriage, same sex relations, gender identity, is what it is now, it’s not immoral, it’s not necessarily moral, it just is, and why should anyone else care is the increasing sentiment. Same for abortion, birth control, marriage out of wedlock, etcetera.

This in no ways means that there are no moral truths and nor does it mean that these issues have no moral truth. Like abortion its about people thinking the Fetus is no human life. But if it was established then this would change everything and we could no longer justify abortion. So potentially there may be moral truths to these situations and we just have not found them yet.

 

[Moral Orel]

oops I did it again. That damn Logic. Luckily logic alone cannot account for morality.

You are literally confessing that an objective morality is irrational. You get that, right?

But an observation. I have noticed when debating this topic that everyone appeals to the same ilogical arguement of proving morality through the way humans act morally though agreement/disagreement as though this is sufficent. Such as morality is conditioned by society and therefore this proves its subjective. Or because people disagree morally there can be no objective morals.

Yeah, I know you never listened to anything I said too. See, I never made any of those arguments, and my proof still stands undefeated. You couldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

But that's fine. Now that I know you believe the law of non-contradiction can be violated, we'll just settle on the fact that our mutually exclusive positions are both true. We can both be winners as long as X = ~X

 

[stevevw]

You are literally confessing that an objective morality is irrational. You get that, right?

no only that I am not good at formal arguements and that formal arguements don't necessarily prove morality as irrational. You can use formal logic to make totally irrational ideas logical

Yeah, I know you never listened to anything I said too. See, I never made any of those arguments, and my proof still stands undefeated. You couldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

But that's fine. Now that I know you believe the law of non-contradiction can be violated, we'll just settle on the fact that our mutually exclusive positions are both true. We can both be winners as long as X = ~X

Well that was my point in mentioning the agreement/disagreement arguement. Not that you used it but that it seems that this is an important aspect of supporting morality which shows that its not just about logic.

Morality matters to us and morality is an abstract concept that is not subject to science or logic in the same way descriptive statements are. So it seems how humans treat morality is a big part of proving morality.

That is why some philosophers use epistemics as the link to morality. We know there are epistemic values and facts and some of these are interwined with morality. So we can make logical arguements based on this as they are about practical and factual ways we establish knowledge and beliefs. So if there are epistemic values and facts then there are moral values and facts and they stand and fall together. ie

Epistemic Argument 1
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 Argument 2
1. If epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true.
2. Epistemic realism is true.
C: Therefore, moral realism is true.

 

[Moral Orel]

no only that I am not good at formal arguements and that formal arguements don't necessarily prove morality as irrational. You can use formal logic to make totally irrational ideas logical

No, you said that morality is not logical. You said that your reasoning both follows logically, and does not follow logically. You have claimed that X = ~X There's no coming back from that, bro.

Well that was my point in mentioning the agreement/disagreement arguement. Not that you used it

Yes, I didn't use it or any of your examples that you claimed "everyone" uses.

Morality matters to us and morality is an abstract concept that is not subject to science or logic in the same way descriptive statements are. So it seems how humans treat morality is a big part of proving morality.

That is why some philosophers use epistemics as the link to morality. We know there are epistemic values and facts and some of these are interwined with morality. So we can make logical arguements based on this as they are about practical and factual ways we establish knowledge and beliefs. So if there are epistemic values and facts then there are moral values and facts and they stand and fall together. ie

Epistemic Argument 1
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 Argument 2
1. If epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true.
2. Epistemic realism is true.
C: Therefore, moral realism is true.

There are no epistemic facts and my proof already showed that.

 

[stevevw]

No, you said that morality is not logical. You said that your reasoning both follows logically, and does not follow logically. You have claimed that X = ~X There's no coming back from that, bro.

Yes, I didn't use it or any of your examples that you claimed "everyone" uses.

There are no epistemic facts and my proof already showed that.

That cannot be right as far as I understand Epistemics is about the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Wikipedia

So we can determine some epistemic facts such as what you mentioned the non-contradiction law. Or how we determine and justify true knowledge and beliefs. There are certain ways we should investigate and present knowledge and beliefs otherwise they cannot be justified and used as support.

When arguing a point we should not rely on false evidence, be deligent investigators to find the facts/truth, don't rely on false evidence, ect. There are also facts about how come to know the truth of a matter in philosophical debates like don't misrepresent other peoples arguements. They are like the rules for knowledge and beliefs and some are intertwined with morals.

Nathan Nobis (2005), Terence Cuneo (2007) and Richard Rowland (2013) advance versions of this argument, which is potentially persuasive because epistemic realism seems harder to deny than moral realism. Perhaps the denial of epistemic facts altogether is even self-defeating, as I have tried to argue in chapter 2.
From Epistemic to Moral Realism in: Journal of Moral Philosophy Volume 16 Issue 5 (2019)

Epistemic facts are normative. They are facts that speak to the interest in getting stuff right and that is an interest we all share. They are normative for us to the extent that the concepts with which we express them have come to express our endorsement of the ends this shared interest gives us, an endorsement we express most explicitly when we throw words like "ought" around in epistemic contexts.

Many of our concepts involve a complex entangling of the normative and the descriptive. A pure reductionism, offered as the whole story about epistemic concepts, would indeed miss an essential normative dimension.
The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism

 

[Moral Orel]

So we can determine some epistemic facts such as what you mentioned the non-contradiction law.

Wrong. The law of non-contradiction isn't an "epistemic fact". It doesn't state "X shouldn't equal not X". It states "X does not equal not X".

There are certain ways we should investigate and present knowledge and beliefs otherwise they cannot be justified and used as support.

When arguing a point we should not rely on false evidence, be deligent investigators to find the facts/truth, don't rely on false evidence, ect. There are also facts about how come to know the truth of a matter in philosophical debates like don't misrepresent other peoples arguements. They are like the rules for knowledge and beliefs and some are intertwined with morals.

Nathan Nobis (2005), Terence Cuneo (2007) and Richard Rowland (2013) advance versions of this argument, which is potentially persuasive because epistemic realism seems harder to deny than moral realism. Perhaps the denial of epistemic facts altogether is even self-defeating, as I have tried to argue in chapter 2.
From Epistemic to Moral Realism in: Journal of Moral Philosophy Volume 16 Issue 5 (2019)

Epistemic facts are normative. They are facts that speak to the interest in getting stuff right and that is an interest we all share. They are normative for us to the extent that the concepts with which we express them have come to express our endorsement of the ends this shared interest gives us, an endorsement we express most explicitly when we throw words like "ought" around in epistemic contexts.

Many of our concepts involve a complex entangling of the normative and the descriptive. A pure reductionism, offered as the whole story about epistemic concepts, would indeed miss an essential normative dimension.
The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism

There are no epistemic facts and my proof already showed it. You'll have to address my argument that you have ignored.

 

[stevevw]

Wrong. The law of non-contradiction isn't an "epistemic fact". It doesn't state "X shouldn't equal not X". It states "X does not equal not X".

Ok so I misunderstood the law of law of non-contradiction. As far as I understood when it comes to epistemics as there are certain ways we should obtain and justify knowledge and beliefs as proper we should'nt make contradictory arguements to justify knowledge and beliefs. Its like we should'nt use false evidence.

There are no epistemic facts and my proof already showed it. You'll have to address my argument that you have ignored.

As far as I remember you have not made an arguement for there being no epistemic facts. We are both applying epistemic facts in our debate so I cannot see how you have argued that these epistemic facts are not real. We could not have this debate without them.

 

[Moral Orel]

As far as I remember you have not made an arguement for there being no epistemic facts.

My proof covers all "should" and "ought" statements of any kind.

 

[stevevw]

My proof covers all "should" and "ought" statements of any kind.

BUt you have not even addressed the arguement in the article I linked. Under epistemics its different to morality as its about how we conduct ourseleves when justifying knowledge and beliefs as proper.

There are epistemic values and facts which necessarily apply to make them proper otherwise we cannot even engage with others and yet we do and everyone implicitly accepts and prescribes these epistemic facts when they engage like we are doing.

You are applying them now implicitly and if you didn't and rejected these epistemic facts then we cannot engage in any coherent way.

Besides its not the case that "Shoulds"or "oughts" don't apply in non-moral statements. It happens all the time for example under non moral norms ie when some says "I "should" go to the shops now as I need to get a present" ect ect.

 

[childeye 2]

That defies the very meaning of “objective.”

Objective: “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts…
existing outside the mind; based on facts that can be proved objective reality” Oxford dictionary.

That which is “objective” is true, reality, factual, independent of our existence. The speed of light is “objective,” as its speed isn’t and doesn’t depend on our existence or an accurate and correct understanding of its speed by any of us. Just as objects tossed in the air on earth A) fall back down at a rate is B.) 9.8 meters per second squared.

That those objects fall back down and at a certain rate isn’t dependent on our existence, or our thoughts. The human race could disappear tomorrow and all else being equal, objects will fall and at that rate on this planet devoid of Homo Sapiens.

So, if there is an “objective” morality, it’s existence isn’t and doesn’t depend on us or our understanding.

Which, I add, there’s no evidence for this morality and presently no way to demonstrate its existence should objective morality exist.

To show compassion to the suffering is objectively moral.

 

[NotreDame]

under this logic nothing can be regarded as objective without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts.

The reseach shows that we are born with the basics of moral truths.

researchers have found babies as young as six months old already make moral judgments, and they think we may be born with a moral code hard-wired into our brains.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2010-05-psychologists-babies-wrong-months.html

I will address the above and subsequently address the remainder of your post at a later time.

under this logic nothing can be regarded as objective without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts.

The above is not a deduction based on what I said. The above is contrary to and inconsistent with what I said.

I previously said, “objective, where objective refers to a state of affairs that exist, is factual, reality, without regard to us, our existence, and our thoughts.”

So, an object tossed up in the air on the rather will A) fallback toward earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. That is “objective” reality, objective truth. This will occur without any human being on the planet. This occurrence exists independently of our existence. Hence, it is objective.

Objective: “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts…existing outside the mind; based on facts that can be proved
• objective reality”

Subjective is that which doesn’t exist or occur independently of us and our thoughts. Moral and value judgments likely fall into this category. Unlike gravity causing an object to fall to earth at a certain rate, there’s nothing we can observe or test, independently of our existence, that declares X is morally valuable, morally reprehensible, or morally acceptable.

So, no, objective reality exists independently of us precisely and exactly because objective realtity isn’t dependent on us or our thoughts.

The reseach shows that we are born with the basics of moral truths.

You find this study persuasive?

The baby isn’t a tabula rasa at 6 months to ten months, which was the range of study. The baby has been exposed to, on a daily basis, from birth to 10 months, to a wide range of human behaviors and interactions. Such as parents, adults, siblings, and sitters yelling “no” when they do not want the baby to act some way, saying “yes” to approve of behaviors, observing the parent, sibling, or adult helping the baby with a host of activities, such as washing them, changing their clothing, diaper, wiping them, feeding them, rocking them, essentially the baby from birth to ten months have personally experienced and witnessed a wide range of behaviors that can influence the study. They controlled for this how exactly?

For example, the article states they “used the ability to differentiate between unhelpful and helpful behavior as their indicator of moral judgement.” Of course, the subjects would be able to so identity such behavior and strongly associate with the behavior positively but not because of any innate, born with morality, but because since birth they have witnessed and experienced help, a lot of help, from adults, as adults fed them when hungry in the middle of the evening and other hours of the day, read to them, sang to them, bathed them, changed their diapers, wiped their butts, dressed them, rocked them, burped them, etcetera. Infants from birth to ten months spend their entire lives during that span being helpless and receiving inordinate amounts of help by adults. So, it is no surprise 80% pick the “helpful” behavior, they know it when they see it because they have seen and received copious amounts of helpful behavior.

In one experiment “the babies were shown a toy dog puppet attempting to open a box, with a friendly teddy bear helping the dog, and an unfriendly teddy thwarting his efforts by sitting on him. After watching at least half a dozen times the babies were given the opportunity to choose one of the teddy bears. The majority chose the helpful teddy.” In another experiment, “A red ball attempts to climb a hill and is aided at times by a yellow triangle that helps it up the hill by getting behind it and pushing. At other times the red ball is forced back down the hill by a blue square. After watching the puppet show at least six times the babies were asked to choose a character. An overwhelming majority (over 80%) chose the helpful figure.”

Now, the “friendly teddy” and helpful “yellow triangle” resembles the adults and others in their lives who help the subjects on a daily basis and, shocker, they develop an attachment and liking for the people in their lives who help them by feeding them, bathing them, getting them something to drink, getting them dressed, tending to their daily needs that are so voluminous as to exhaust parents and others.

So, it’s no surprise the study subjects pick the helpful entity, as their entire life to that point has been daily, copious amounts of helpful behaviors showered upon them.

The study has other issues.

The study’s author(s) assigned moral significance to helpful behavior. That’s a problem don’t ya think? They’ve assigned a moral value to their study, and did so in a binary fashion, such that there’s only two choices, that of A which is morally positive behavior, or B which is not, with morally approved behavior baked into the study.

But what makes the “helpful” or “unhelpful” conduct in the study moral or immoral? It’s either one because the author says so? The study has a decent shot of finding what it’s looking for because it’s already baked into the study by the study authors assigning moral values. That never occurred to you to be a serious issue that hits at the integrity of the study?

At best this study has baked into it someone’s subjective belief of moral and immoral value judgments assigned to helpful and unhelpful behavior in which 6 to 10 month olds can identify and distinguish helpful from unhelpful as their existence to that point is accurately characterized as an inundation of helpful behaviors showered upon them, which supports the idea the results aren’t a result of any innate, objectivity morality, but a bias towards it based on the authors moral judgments in the study and the subjects heavy exposure to that behavior rendered moral by the authors.

“Prof. Bloom said it was not a subtle statistical trend as “just about all the babies reached for the good guy.”

Oh, okay, so it’s the “good guy” because he said so? Oh no, wait, the “helpful” guy was the one pushing and he’s the “good guy” but based on what, the professor saying so? There is a “good guy” baked into the study but what makes the “good guy” in the study “good”?

And the article was thoughtful enough to disclose some of the criticism of the study. “Other psychologists have cautioned that adult assumptions can affect how babies’ reactions are interpreted, and that babies begin to learn from the moment they are born.”

Despite the anemic attention to the criticism, the criticism is compelling because the study has baked into “adult assumptions” that “interpret” the “reactions” and “babies begin to learn from the moment they are born,” including that which is helpful behaviors.

The study is flawed.