Is there Objective Morality?

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Are we?

We implement moral codes.

Laws. We implement laws.

 

[stevevw]

Are we?

I would hope so because legal systems depend on responsibility and accountability before the law such as the Rule of Law. In fact not just our legal system but our ethical codes of conduct and Human Rights.

Laws. We implement laws.

Yes but we also have Ethical Codes of conduct, Torte Laws and Duty of Care and. We also have Social norms which govern non-legal behavior. Without the principles of responsibility and accountability this would all be rendered useless.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

I responded as if you said.
If there are no eyes and ears, then there is no such thing as color and sound.
Now perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. Are you saying if there were no ears or eyes, the word color or sound would not exist? Or are you saying what we currently call color or sound would not exist if we didn't have those things. I’m saying what we currently call colors or sound would exist even though we may not have a word for it, because we wouldn’t know of it.

 

[Moral Orel]

I responded as if you said.
If there are no eyes and ears, then there is no such thing as color and sound.
Now perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. Are you saying if there were no ears or eyes, the word color or sound would not exist? Or are you saying what we currently call color or sound would not exist if we didn't have those things. I’m saying what we currently call colors or sound would exist even though we may not have a word for it, because we wouldn’t know of it.

There is such a thing as light, there is such a thing as photons. Those things exist even if there are no eyes, sure. You and Steve are both replying to me as if I'm saying reality needs an observer, I'm not.

Color isn't light, though. Color comes from the interaction between our physiology and our brains with light. It only exists in that interaction. If our physiology was different, then our perception of color would be different. Color is dependent on the subject's perception. That's what makes it subjective.

Light exists without eyes, sure. Light has different wavelengths without eyes, sure. But different wavelengths don't produce different colors. Our brains translate different wavelengths to different colors. Different wavelengths of light are not different colors in themselves.

tldr, photon wavelength is real and objective. Color is all in your head and nowhere else. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is such a thing as light, there is such a thing as photons. Those things exist even if there are no eyes, sure. You and Steve are both replying to me as if I'm saying reality needs an observer, I'm not.

But aren't those photons what we call colors? Sorta like how I call that in my front lawn a tree instead of a pile of atoms?

photon wavelength is real and objective. Color is all in your head and nowhere else. They aren't the same thing.

But if everybody who experience those photons have the same exact experience, how is that subjective?

 

[stevevw]

I think colour is real and an important part of nature. Its not just something that's made up arbitrarily. For example bee's see flowers in different colours to us and other species because they have different eye cones. Bee's prefer what appears to us as mainly yellow flowers. Bee eye cones are designed to see colours in a way that highlights where the nectar is in a flower. In fact colour seems to be more important than shape.

I would say this is true for all creatures and for all our senses. So there is a reason why colours are the way they are and they seem to fit well with the way each species sees colours. So colours are interwoven into the physical world as well and not a separate phenomena and therefore is part of reality. I think this is a good example of how something that has no direct physical objective basis and yet can be an important part of reality.

 

[Moral Orel]

But aren't those photons what we call colors? Sorta like how I call that in my front lawn a tree instead of a pile of atoms?

No. Color is manufactured by our brains. It isn't inherent to light.

But if everybody who experience those photons have the same exact experience, how is that subjective?

They don't, so you're working from a false premise.

 

[Moral Orel]

For example bee's see flowers in different colours to us and other species because they have different eye cones. Bee's prefer what appears to us as mainly yellow flowers. Bee eye cones are designed to see colours in a way that highlights where the nectar is in a flower. In fact colour seems to be more important than shape.

I would say this is true for all creatures and for all our senses. So there is a reason why colours are the way they are and they seem to fit well with the way each species sees colours.

You're proving my point for me. Bees see colors differently than us because colors aren't a certain way. It depends on the subject. Bees don't see colors correctly, and neither do we. Our brains process light different ways. Color is a product of that process in our brains. Color is not a property of light.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. Color is manufactured by our brains. It isn't inherent to light.

So why is everybody's brains manufacturing the exact same thing, if it is completely subjective?

 

[Moral Orel]

So why is everybody's brains manufacturing the exact same thing, if it is completely subjective?

Every brain is not manufacturing the exact same thing. Your premise is false.

 

[Ken-1122]

Every brain is not manufacturing the exact same thing. Your premise is false.

How is the manufacturing different when everyone agrees on the same colors?

 

[Kylie]

How is the manufacturing different when everyone agrees on the same colors?

That doesn't mean that everyone is seeing it the same.

If we both look at a stop sign, we can both recognise it as red. But what you see as red could be what I see as blue, you just call it red.

 

[Chriliman]

How is the manufacturing different when everyone agrees on the same colors?

I think he’s just saying a subject/observer is required to perceive color. IOW, there is no perceivable color without that. I do agree the processes that take place for perception to happen are objective.

So I have a subjective experience, but when my experience aligns with objective facts, it can be said that my subjective experience is objectively correct, such as when myself and another non-colorblind friend agree on the color blue. We aren’t just subjectively correct since our correctness aligns with reality.

 

[Chriliman]

That doesn't mean that everyone is seeing it the same.

If we both look at a stop sign, we can both recognise it as red. But what you see as red could be what I see as blue, you just call it red.

If this is true, how do we distinguish color blind people from non-color blind?

 

[Kylie]

If this is true, how do we distinguish color blind people from non-color blind?

Because two colours that look different to us would look the same to them. The fact that colour blind people exist at all shows that colour perception is subjective, not objective.

 

[stevevw]

You're proving my point for me. Bees see colors differently than us because colors aren't a certain way. It depends on the subject. Bees don't see colors correctly, and neither do we. Our brains process light different ways. Color is a product of that process in our brains. Color is not a property of light.

Yes colour is the product of the processes in our brain and also a number of other processes and if working correctly will produce a consistent colour range for each species. It doesn't matter how the brain interprets what the colours are. Its the fact that whatever the colour ends up being its based on certain light wave lengths.

So if an eye cone can only receive short wave lengths for blue its not going to end up receiving long wave lengths of red unless there is a problem with the eye cones or something else along the way. The colour white is the result of total reflection of light waves and black is the result of total absorption of light and all humans will see the same black and white unless there is some problem because you can't get yellow our of total light absorption or reflection. Bees can see UV light and all bees will see the same UV light which is needed to find nectar.

Though the colours are interpreted they are still based on certain wave length measures, illumination, angle of light, and the physiological mechanisms that direct this.There is a small degree of variance in shades of colour between subjects because each colour has a range on the colour spectrum. But eye cones pick up the range of specific colours and having a completely different colour for that eye cone can only happen of the eye cone is abnormal and picks up another range or no range at all.

But this sort of subjectivity is different to subjective thinking. One is about the makeup of the physical subject which can vary but still have some objective basis despite colour being interpreted by the brain. The other is about likes and dislikes of colour which can change according to changes in likes and dislikes of colour.

 

[stevevw]

Because two colours that look different to us would look the same to them. The fact that colour blind people exist at all shows that colour perception is subjective, not objective.

But there is an objective reason why they don't perceive the same colours being colour blindness. This doesn't equate to subjective thinking which is about likes and dislikes for colour and has no objective basis.

The subject is a physical vessel and there can be physical variance in that vessel which can vary results. But that variance has objective reasons. There is no rational or objective reason for subjective thinking about likes and dislikes. 10 subjects could like 10 different colours which has nothing to do with the physical and mechanical processes of how we end up perceiving colours.

 

[Kylie]

But there is an objective reason why they don't perceive the same colours being colour blindness. This doesn't equate to subjective thinking which is about likes and dislikes for colour and has no objective basis.

The subject is a physical vessel and there can be physical variance in that vessel which can vary results. But that variance has objective reasons. There is no rational or objective reason for subjective thinking about likes and dislikes. 10 subjects could like 10 different colours which has nothing to do with the physical and mechanical processes of how we end up perceiving colours.

You seem to be missing my point. When we take into account that perception of colour depends not just on the physical structures of the eye, but also they way that information is interpreted by the brain, it's entirely plausible that the colour perception of Person A is different to that of Person B.

Color Is Subjective - ExtremeTech

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[Kylie]

...

Huh?