Is there Objective Morality?

[Ken-1122]

When you see red and you see green, you see two different colors. A person with red-green color blindness sees no distinction even when all the wavelengths of light that are hitting their eyes and yours are identical.

That's why colorblindness is considered a handicap

If they see no distinction, then they aren't seeing the distinct colors that you do.

People experience color differently, that's why it's subjective. It is subject to the makeup of the individual. There is no objective color. Color doesn't even exist without a subject's cones.

People with the handicap of color blindness will see colors differently the same way a person with defective hearing will experience sound differently. But that doesn’t mean sound is subjective. How about if the person is totally blind and can’t see anything around them?

 

[stevevw]

Sure. But never along the way are any of those decisions or choices to like, feel, or believe something.

I mean at what point does a person 'like or feel' something. Its not a sudden thing and I don't think it takes one decision but many. They may have liked or felt something before they even realized it and expressing that like or feeling comes gradually.

You might choose to put yourself in a situation that causes you to develop a like, feeling, or opinion. But you don't have control over the outcome.

Whereas I think we do as we are not robots. Our subjective likes and feelings are usually more to do with our psychological state than our senses. So we can control our psychological state and develop a like or feeling by changing our mind set by choosing to. Its a bit like body building. You don't wake up one morning ripped. You take control and will yourself into shape.

I agree we can have sudden feelings and likes as though they come from nowhere. But often they don't and have been cultivated beforehand. Sometimes those sudden likes and feelings are not real but we think they are. They are not how we really see things but because psychology plays a big part we can fool ourselves. Its only when we consider things and work at defining our likes and feeling do we find out who we really are.

That's why color is subjective. What color we see is subject to the configuration and physiological makeup of each individual's cones.

But that is a different kind of subjectivity to what we usually talk about with tastes, feelings and opinions as they are all in the head and can be irrational.

But that is a different kind of subjectivity to what we usually talk about with tastes, feelings and opinions as they are all in the head and can be irrational. Whereas a physiological basis is objective. The colour we see is based on a common set of eye cones which are red, green and blue and have a specific range on the colour spectrum. There is a degree of variation this usually has some physiological reason.

When you see red and you see green, you see two different colors. A person with red-green color blindness sees no distinction even when all the wavelengths of light that are hitting their eyes and yours are identical.

If they see no distinction, then they aren't seeing the distinct colors that you do.

People experience color differently, that's why it's subjective. It is subject to the makeup of the individual. There is no objective color. Color doesn't even exist without a subject's cones.

But that has a physiological basis “their eye cones are reversed or they having an eye cone missing. There's an objective reason why. This is opposed to the subjectivity we speak of with tastes or likes for colours as being irrational because its the psychological state and not the physical state.

Otherwise we may as well say that someone who is death or blind is just a subjective state compared to someone who can see or hear. But the ability to hear and see has an objective basis. One has the normal functioning physical mechanisms and the other has the dysfunctional normal function which has an objective reason why.

But this does bring up some interesting scenarios. If colour is subjective then we have an example of an objective thing being subjective because colour is real and part of the objective world. If colour is objective but cannot be a real thing in the physical world and yet is real as far as it having an affect on the physical world then which is true and real. Is all reality like this.

What is the arbiter of reality the physical world or the subject.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, you're wrong here.
All we know is that the colour you call RED is the same as the colour I call RED.

But what I call red might be the colour you call blue. All we know is that we both call the particular colour the same name. Doesn't mean we see the colour the same way.

But there will be an objective reason why because the wave lengths for red is different to blue. So the person who sees blue instead of red has the wrong eye cones where the red is suppose to go.

Just like there will be a physiological reason why someone can see and someone cannot. Its not subjective in the true sense because a subjective difference is all in the head. When I say head I don't mean physiologically but psychologically and will have no rational reason.

But my RED cone might be more sensitive to 640 nanometers, and yours might be more sensitive to 660 nanometers. So, even when looking at the same object, we'd still have the red cones firing different amounts.

So you have just given the objective reason why they are different and we can measure the light receptors.

Someone with properly function eye cones for red green and blue cannot claim they see blue where it is red because their eye cones are designed to detect the specific wave lengths related to red, green and blue.

But if someone said they like blue rather than red then this is subjective because there is no objective basis. We cannot measure likes and dislikes objectively.

 

[Kylie]

But there will be an objective reason why because the wave lengths for red is different to blue. So the person who sees blue instead of red has the wrong eye cones where the red is suppose to go.

Just like there will be a physiological reason why someone can see and someone cannot. Its not subjective in the true sense because a subjective difference is all in the head. When I say head I don't mean physiologically but psychologically and will have no rational reason.

I'm wondering how this related to the issue of whether morality is subjective or objective...

So you have just given the objective reason why they are different and we can measure the light receptors.

Someone with properly function eye cones for red green and blue cannot claim they see blue where it is red because their eye cones are designed to detect the specific wave lengths related to red, green and blue.

But if someone said they like blue rather than red then this is subjective because there is no objective basis. We cannot measure likes and dislikes objectively.

Right. Things that are subjective can not be measured and things that are objective CAN be measured, right?

 

[Moral Orel]

But that doesn’t mean sound is subjective.

If colour is subjective then we have an example of an objective thing being subjective because colour is real and part of the objective world.

Color and sound are subjective. They both require a subject to process and perceive them, and different subjects process and perceive them differently.

Photons are real. Photons travel at different measurable wavelengths. That is not color. Color is a brain perceiving different wavelengths. Color is the experience, it is not the wavelength.

Matter is real. Matter vibrates at different measurable frequencies. That is not sound. Sound is a brain perceiving different vibrations. Sound is the experience, it is not the frequency.

If there are no eyes and ears, then there is no such thing as color and sound.

 

[Moral Orel]

Whereas I think we do as we are not robots.

Still with the false dichotomy. You seem to think if we don't have a choice in our feelings, then we're robots. So okay, I'll prove you're a robot. Turn a burner on your stove to max. Leave it on for ten minutes. Turn the fire off, then touch the grate. I predict that you will experience pain that you dislike against your will because you're a robot. Or you can prove me wrong and choose to feel nothing.

 

[Ken-1122]

Color and sound are subjective. They both require a subject to process and perceive them, and different subjects process and perceive them differently.

Just because different subjects (sentient beings) may experience it differently does not make it subjective. Subjective means based on personal beliefs and opinions; rather than facts.

If there are no eyes and ears, then there is no such thing as color and sound.

No; just because we are unable to experience it does not mean it does not exist. Germs existed long before the invention of the microscope.

 

[stevevw]

If there are no eyes and ears, then there is no such thing as color and sound.

Under that logic if there were no conscious beings there would be nothing at all.

When a jet breaks the sound barrier and we see the exploding cloud as a result we see the results of sound. So it has a real effect on the physical world.

Just like if someone subjectively thought a red traffic light was green. They know the physical results of that when they get totaled by a car. Colours are part of reality.

 

[stevevw]

Still with the false dichotomy. You seem to think if we don't have a choice in our feelings, then we're robots.

But that is what you are more or less saying. That we can't help but feel and like what we do. All I know is we have agency and free will. We are not passive passengers on this journey of life. So at some point unless we have damage to our systems we have a choice.

The choices we make may make it harder for us to control our thinking and feelings but that doesn't mean we don't have a degree of control over our subjective thinking and feelings. It just means we have to try harder to take control and will ourselves to change our feelings and thinking.

So okay, I'll prove you're a robot. Turn a burner on your stove to max. Leave it on for ten minutes. Turn the fire off, then touch the grate. I predict that you will experience pain that you dislike against your will because you're a robot. Or you can prove me wrong and choose to feel nothing.

I'm not saying we are robots, from what I understand that is what you are saying when you claim we have no control over our likes, dislikes and feelings.

The only reason we feel pain is because we experience it. But that has nothing to do with the nerves and electrical signals sent to our brain. There is no experience of pain in our nerves or brain. If we take the experience side out then we are robots programmed to react to our environment.

I think our experience is different to our subjective likes and feelings and is real and measurable as far as reality is concerned.

 

[Moral Orel]

Just because different subjects (sentient beings) may experience it differently does not make it subjective.

Yeah, it does.

Subjective means based on personal beliefs and opinions; rather than facts.

Wrong. Subjective things are based on personal tastes, feelings, and opinions. Your senses are your feelings.

No; just because we are unable to experience it does not mean it does not exist. Germs existed long before the invention of the microscope.

You didn't even read my post. You snipped half of it away, and that other half addressed your objection here. I'm done with you.

 

[Moral Orel]

Under that logic if there were no conscious beings there would be nothing at all.

Wrong, I addressed this already. Actually read my post this time.

 

[stevevw]

I'm wondering how this related to the issue of whether morality is subjective or objective...

I am beginning to wonder why as well lol. I am trying to see the subjective/objective moral issue from a different angle. As you know we have been debating this issue and with others for some time countering each other with scenarios and examples and it gets nowhere. Both sides think they are right.

I am trying to see the bigger picture metaphysically and questioning what is reality. The is/ought problem for objective morality is measured by the “is” and the "is" is regarded as reality I assume which is usually a material thing. Which is also what materialistic science claims is the measure of reality. Or at least assumes it is and then sets out to prove that.

I am questioning that and saying that there is more to reality than material/physical stuff and that consciousness (conscious experience) plays an important part. If this is the case then this dispels the “is/ought” problem because the “is” in the is/ought is no longer the measuring stick.

We would have to re-evaluate what reality is which is already happening across most disciplines like psychology, physics and evolution.
As we have been discussing our conscious experience plays an important if not the most important influence on reality. We can derive non-material influences that make a difference to reality.

That's why many people ask the question what is reality. Does the observer or subject help create reality. If phenomena like colours and pain are something the subject creates then why not physical reality itself and why not morality.

That makes the subject an arbiter of not only reality but also morality because morality is intertwined with conscious experience and consciousness is all. We can experience how immoral behavior affects ourselves and others and it matters to us for survival. We intuitively know moral truths and become the morality we choose or choose not to be. This has a tangible affect on ourselves and society as its part of our reality.

Right. Things that are subjective can not be measured and things that are objective CAN be measured, right?

That's only according to the assumption that reality is only material/physical. I am taking a metaphysical view and questioning that assumption. If conscious experience is subjective and conscious experience is a part of is reality then then the subject creates reality. Or at least has an influence on reality.

As we have been discussing with colours and feelings like pain though these things may not have an actual material/physical basis they are as real as anything physical. So reality must be made on non-physical stuff as well. We can't measure that through methodological naturalism.

That's why I originally quoted Jordan Peterson who said reality is not just about 'Matter” but 'What Matters' because it seems its not just about the material/physical mechanisms and processes like a robot has but also about our conscious experience. We can't reduce that to material/physical mechanisms like nerves, electrical signals, neurons our senses, etc but it is still real enough for us.

 

[stevevw]

Color and sound are subjective. They both require a subject to process and perceive them, and different subjects process and perceive them differently.

You seem to be talking about 'subjective' in 2 different ways. First the 'subject' has to process and perceive everything including the physical world.

Second we have to perceive and process the physical world to determine whats subjective and whats objective. So just because the subject has to process and perceive things doesn't mean its subjective. We can process what we perceive and find an objective basis for it outside the subject.

Third subjective experience is different from subjective thinking. There is nothing to process and perceive, its an experience. So our experience of colour and sound has nothing to do with our subjective likes and feelings about colour and sound. [/quote] Yes I agree. Its the same as eyes and brains are not colour.

Photons are real. Photons travel at different measurable wavelengths. That is not color. Color is a brain perceiving different wavelengths. Color is the experience, it is not the wavelength.

Matter is real. Matter vibrates at different measurable frequencies. That is not sound. Sound is a brain perceiving different vibrations. Sound is the experience, it is not the frequency.

If there are no eyes and ears, then there is no such thing as color and sound.

Once again I agree.

But the question is why the experience of colours and sound is so constant between subjects. If it was truly subjective it would not be so constant and would vary between subjects as you say.

So our experience of colours and sounds is more than just our brains subjective thinking. It has real world influence and effects which we all seem to tap into the same experience like its not open to subjective interpretation and is a law similar to laws of physics.

 

[Moral Orel]

You seem to be talking about 'subjective' in 2 different ways. First the 'subject' has to process and perceive everything including the physical world.

Nope. Things which are internal to the subject are subjective because they require a subject. Color, sound, smell, taste, tactile sensations, feelings, etc.

So just because the subject has to process and perceive things doesn't mean its subjective.

Things which require a subject to exist are subjective. It isn't about what a subject has to do, it is about what requires a subject to even exist.

There is nothing to process and perceive, its an experience.

Processing and perceiving is the experience.

But the question is why the experience of colours and sound is so constant between subjects. If it was truly subjective it would not be so constant and would vary between subjects as you say.

It isn't constant and it varies between subjects. We've already been over examples such as color-blind folks, so I'm guessing you're just willfully ignoring me.

 

[Moral Orel]

All I know is we have agency and free will.

No, you don't know that. Free will is an unfalsifiable concept. If all the choices you make, and all the feelings you have, and all of your thoughts were actually being controlled by an outside force, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Your perception would be exactly the same as if you were in control.

 

[Kylie]

I am beginning to wonder why as well lol. I am trying to see the subjective/objective moral issue from a different angle. As you know we have been debating this issue and with others for some time countering each other with scenarios and examples and it gets nowhere. Both sides think they are right.

I am trying to see the bigger picture metaphysically and questioning what is reality. The is/ought problem for objective morality is measured by the “is” and the "is" is regarded as reality I assume which is usually a material thing. Which is also what materialistic science claims is the measure of reality. Or at least assumes it is and then sets out to prove that.

I am questioning that and saying that there is more to reality than material/physical stuff and that consciousness (conscious experience) plays an important part. If this is the case then this dispels the “is/ought” problem because the “is” in the is/ought is no longer the measuring stick.

We would have to re-evaluate what reality is which is already happening across most disciplines like psychology, physics and evolution.
As we have been discussing our conscious experience plays an important if not the most important influence on reality. We can derive non-material influences that make a difference to reality.

That's why many people ask the question what is reality. Does the observer or subject help create reality. If phenomena like colours and pain are something the subject creates then why not physical reality itself and why not morality.

That makes the subject an arbiter of not only reality but also morality because morality is intertwined with conscious experience and consciousness is all. We can experience how immoral behavior affects ourselves and others and it matters to us for survival. We intuitively know moral truths and become the morality we choose or choose not to be. This has a tangible affect on ourselves and society as its part of our reality.

That's only according to the assumption that reality is only material/physical. I am taking a metaphysical view and questioning that assumption. If conscious experience is subjective and conscious experience is a part of is reality then then the subject creates reality. Or at least has an influence on reality.

As we have been discussing with colours and feelings like pain though these things may not have an actual material/physical basis they are as real as anything physical. So reality must be made on non-physical stuff as well. We can't measure that through methodological naturalism.

That's why I originally quoted Jordan Peterson who said reality is not just about 'Matter” but 'What Matters' because it seems its not just about the material/physical mechanisms and processes like a robot has but also about our conscious experience. We can't reduce that to material/physical mechanisms like nerves, electrical signals, neurons our senses, etc but it is still real enough for us.

So you are assuming a metaphysical, despite the fact that there is no reliable evidence for anything metaphysical, and you are assuming that your interpretation of it is correct.

Whole lot of IFs there...

 

[Ken-1122]

Yeah, it does.

I disagree! When the reason they experience it differently is due to their handicap (inability to see colors, or hear sounds correctly) that handicap does not make sound and colors subjective

Wrong. Subjective things are based on personal tastes, feelings, and opinions.

Same thing.

Your senses are your feelings.

Your senses are how you experience things. Often that which you experience is objective. But when your senses are not working correctly (unable to experience the tree in front of you because you are blind) that doesn’t mean it isn’t there because you can’t experience it.

You didn't even read my post. You snipped half of it away, and that other half addressed your objection here. I'm done with you.

Perhaps the part I didn't respond to, I did not disagree with.

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps the part I didn't respond to, I did not disagree with.

Then you wouldn't be responding with things like this:

But when your senses are not working correctly (unable to experience the tree in front of you because you are blind) that doesn’t mean it isn’t there because you can’t experience it.

Of course the tree is still there. Even if there are no eyes, there are still photons (like I already said). You're responding to me as though I claimed photons don't exist if there aren't people to experience them. I explicitly said the opposite.

 

[stevevw]

So you are assuming a metaphysical, despite the fact that there is no reliable evidence for anything metaphysical, and you are assuming that your interpretation of it is correct.

Whole lot of IFs there...

Metaphysics isn't any particular position its a philosophical outlook. Its a meta analysis of reality taking a step back and considering what is the fundamental nature of reality, its causes and what may be possible or not.

 

[stevevw]

No, you don't know that. Free will is an unfalsifiable concept. If all the choices you make, and all the feelings you have, and all of your thoughts were actually being controlled by an outside force, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Your perception would be exactly the same as if you were in control.

I think we have free will to a degree. Perhaps more like the will to take a different course as opposed to another.

Whether or not its falsifiable or not as conscious beings we are aware of the consequences for our decisions and actions. We implement moral codes and make people take responsibility for their actions. We cannot make people responsible for their behavior if they don't have a degree of free will.