Objective morality, can it exist? Sort of....

Econ4every1 · Jul 6, 2020

zippy2006 said:
There is a difference between the noun and verb forms of value. Just because something is not valued (verb) by an intentional agent does not mean it has no value (noun).

Then we have hit a roadblock and I'm not sure it's worth discussing this further. No hard feelings, we just disagree, but I'll leave you with this if you think it's worth discussing further.

I would assert that the concept of value is entirely a sentient construct.

To say that water is valuable to trees is to make the subjective observation that trees should have water.

Why should trees have water?

Any answer you give will be entirely from a subjective perspective that requires that you qualify your answers in a way that only a being that has consciousness can do.

Possible answer:

Because without water trees will die.

To which I say, so what?

Now any answer you try to give will be subjective.

zippy2006 said:
An alien species could observe our species and formulate a virtue ethics based on the objective ends that relate to our flourishing

Right, but aliens are subjects and their own systems of valuation will come into play.

They might see us as no different than rocks (which are objects) and kill us without a second thought. If they see us as subjects, they may choose to value our existence or, because consciousness is capable of choices, may choose to kill us anyway for selfish desires because they don't value human existence.

The point here is, that it's all based on subjects and the values they hold.

Objects cannot value, they can only exist in whatever state they exist in. From a rock's point of view, there is no "good" or "bad" state of existence, there is just existence.

zippy2006 said:
It is objective. It is the statement that the length of your body is equivalent to 73 inch measurements. According to your definition that is an objective statement, because it is what it is regardless of how we feel about it.

Exactly, but is an inch an objective idea or concept?

I would say no because the decision to make an inch the distance in space that it is, depended entirely on how we felt about it.

zippy2006 said:
According to your definition it is not subjective. It is not "based on how we feel about them or how they make us feel."

I see.

I didn't think it was necessary to be so precise in my answer to; what is subjective and objective? I figured you were checking to see that I understood the terms same as you. Now you seem to trying to split hairs, so here, let me be more specific

Subjective- Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

So the distance in space an inch covers is an opinion. I would go on to say that inches are the length they are based on our objective experience of reality and our desire to quantify it. In other words, the distance that we call an inch is what it is subjectively, not to be confused with arbitrary because it is useful. it could have been 10% longer or shorter and it would have been just as useful (thin centimeter), but if the smallest common unit (non-fraction) of measurement was what you and I know of as 10' long, I'd argue it would have been of lesser utility as most common items we'd measure would be fractions which are harder for humans to deal with, relatively speaking.

zippy2006 said:
I would say that we are using the same name to name different realities. When introduced in such a way it is the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Are you aware of another reality?

Words are a collection of arbitrary symbols combined to create words. Words are assembled in such a way as to attempt to describe reality (at least in the context of what we're discussing). The word inch has only one meaning. If you tell the cashier at Home Depot that the board you just bought isn't 120 inches it's 60 using inches in your reality, she'll give you a funny look and probably just give you the total cost for a board of 120 inches. If you refuse to pay the 120 price at some point they'll send security, what won't happen is that you'll be allowed to pay a 60-inch price for a 120-inch board because you convinced them that it's only 60 inches in your reality.

With respect, that's sort of a non-answer at best, special pleading at worst.

zippy2006 said:
Names are social conventions; lengths are objective realities. When a name refers to a length--such as an inch--it is referring to an objective reality. The fact that someone can name their child "Inch" doesn't matter.

You've missed my point.

Here let's try this visually.

The objective system of measurement exists within a subjective context. What we decide to call an inch and the length in space it covers is an opinion. There is nothing objective about it. But, once we agree, we give it a name and create physical representations that represent its distance and share it with others who recognize it and adopt it, from that point an inch is objectively an inch within the subjective framework under which it was created.

To call something else like my kid, "inch" would, besides being kinda weird, be complery irrelevant as the term is not referring to measurement, and anyone that comes across the term inch as a proper name would know that.

Econ4every1 · Jul 6, 2020

Moral Orel said:
And what are the individual strategies of the individual players that fall within the rules of the game?

For instance, it's within the rules of the game for the goalie to leave the goal whenever he pleases, but should he run all the way to the other end of the field? No, but other players should.

Strategies? They aren't moral or ethical as you say, they are choices on how to play. If a player decides to walk off the field, that's not a violation of the rules, but it is letting your team down. That's not immoral, but it is a disappointment.

Placing this back into a moral context, if a company has things to sell that people want but decide not to sell, that's a poor choice, but in most context's it's not a moral decision.

Of course, we can if we try hard enough to create a scenario that has a moral component, like for instance, a company decides not to sell people water they need because a hurricane has knocked out the water supply, that's a different story.

So in keeping with your analogy, let's assume the business just decides not to sell things people want. It's a bad business decision, but it's not immoral. Similarly, if a player on a sports team decides not to play his position and that put's his team at a disadvantage, that's not immoral, it's just dumb and the team in question would probably fire that player.

Moral Orel said:
you're using your new definitions to ignore a very real aspect of morality and declaring it logically inconsistent.

Give me an example?

What new definitions?

What am I ignoring?

How is it logically inconsistent?

Ana the Ist · Jul 6, 2020

Econ4every1 said:
Ok, so as long time member but an infrequent poster, I want to write a little preface before this post. I don't consider myself Christian though I grew up in a culture steeped in the Christian tradition and its values. I don't consider myself anti-Christian, but I take issue with a few things that Christians sometimes advocate for. I respect a person's right to choose their faith or lack of except when that faith meets in the "public square" and those without faith (or of a different faith) are asked to make special considerations based on one particular faith alone.

This topic is about morality which hits home for most Christians. it's hard to have this discussion without inadvertently questioning the foundation of Christain faith and belief, at least for most people who identify as Christian. It isn't my goal to invalidate Christianity, though morality is so intertwined in Christian faith and for some, one of the main reasons for believing in god in the first place. Thus, this will be a sensitive topic and I'll do my best not to insult those of the Christin faith, but if you are a Christian who is easily offended, may I suggest you look at other topics.

Respectfully,

E4E1

It is my assertion that all morality is subjective, however, morality can be objective within a value framework.

Let me try with an analogy.

How tall are you?

Now, are you objectively that tall?

Assuming that you give your answer in a formally recognized measurement like the Imperial or Metric system (just to name 2), the answer is YES! After all, if when you stand beside a ruler that is graduated like every other ruler and you measure 6' tall, you are objectively 6' tall relative to the system of measurement.

But are these systems themselves objective? Of course not. The lines on a ruler aren't an objective standard that exists independently of us. We created it, subjectively. Further, the distances we chose to represent inches, feet, yards, and mile weren't chosen at random or arbitrarily, they were chosen to achieve real-world goals (making the point that subjectively does not mean random or arbitrary).

The point being is that it is possible for objectivity to exist within a subjective framework.

A foot is objectively a foot. If a being on the other side of the universe refers to a foot as something other than the distance we all recognize, then objectively the being is not talking about the imperial system of measurement.

I hope that makes sense. I also think this is where a lot of confusion comes from. We all know good from bad and the idea that we need to instructed what is good and bad, to me is silly.

Take the proposition, vanilla ice cream is is better than chocolate. One would struggle to find a statement more subjective than that!

But if I said, eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of broken glass. If I said Vanilla is better, is that just my opinion?

Well, that depends, if we agree that most people value their lives, within the context of that value, it is objectively true that eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of glass. I don't need to be told to know that it's true.

And so....

All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand. Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.

So, when it comes to deciding what is morally right and what is morally wrong, a subject (a person) must apply their subjective valuation of the issue before they can decide where they stand. For example, if a person places a high value on the sanctity of marriage, they will probably consider adultery to be immoral because it violates the sanctity of marriage. A person who places a low value on telling the truth might not see lying as immoral.

For morality to be objective, it must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue. I can’t think of any moral issue that meets those requirements.

For example, if it was objectively true that lying is always immoral, and telling the truth is always moral, then all the people who sought to hide Jews from the Germans during WWII acted immorally whenever they lied to German authorities as to the whereabouts of any Jews the Germans sought. Clearly, however, we would understand it to have been immoral for people to give up the locations of Jewish families in hiding if those people were, in fact, trying to hide and protect those Jewish families. So it cannot be true that it is objectively immoral to lie.

Now, it’s possible to objectively evaluate morality itself, but that’s not the same as morality being objective.

So how do we determine what is right?

First, let me say that morality is not an individual pursuit. That is, people can have ideas about what they think morality should be, but there is no such thing as "individual morality". Just as there is no such thing as a married bachelor. Let's use a sports analogy here. In the game of Soccer, it is considered wrong for anyone but the goalie to use their hands. What if one person picked up the ball and carried it to the other end ignoring all the rules and then proclaimed that he had his own interpretation of the rules?

What do you think would happen to that player?

Similarly, if a ran a store and you came in and asked for a 10lb roast and I handed you a 1lb roast and charged you the 10lb price, you'd rightly be pretty upset. If I said my "personal standard of measurement" was different than the commonly accepted standard, what do you think might happen?

Lastly, what would you say to a person who commits a heinous crime and then simply proclaims that their standard of right and wrong is their own and therefore you can't judge them, what do we do with these kinds of people?

So what we're left with is a framework that looks like this:

Values--->Morality--->Ethics.

Thus it is what we value that lays the foundation for what we believe is right and wrong. Morality is a social construct where people come together and share their ideas about what is right and wrong based on the values they hold.

If we have been wrong about morality in the past, and of course we have, it's because we lacked information and understanding. The things we believed were wrong and that in turn lead to ideas and beliefs that resulted in values that did not live up to the standards we create for ourselves.

For example, the Constitution of the United States says "All men are created equal", but that's not how it worked in practice is it? Why? Because our beliefs and understanding lead to ideas that weren't consistent with our values.

There is more and I suspect that some of you will point out what you see to be flaws in my thinking and I look forward to filling in the gaps in my responses to any challenges I get.

-Cheers

When you say that a particular behavior or action is "good" and I say that it's "good" how do you know we mean the same thing?

Econ4every1 · Jul 6, 2020

Ana the Ist said:
When you say that a particular behavior or action is "good" and I say that it's "good" how do you know we mean the same thing?

Great question.

I think you'll agree that calling something "good" does not make it good by fiat, but rather how the particular behavior or action affects other people.

With that in mind, the obvious answer is that we evaluate the action or behavior in light of the experience of, in this case, human beings. Did the action or behavior promote the health, happiness, or wellbeing of conscious creatures? Did it promote happy health and flourishing society?

If yes, then it's probably good.

I mean, if the term "good" has any meaning at all in the real world, it would best be described as I've described it.

Ana the Ist · Jul 6, 2020

Econ4every1 said:
Great question.

Hey...thanks.

I think you'll agree that calling something "good" does not make it good by fiat,

I do. I would probably say it doesn't make it good in fact.

but rather how the particular behavior or action affects other people.

Well not every moral action affects other people. For example if someone takes their dog for a walk I may say that's a good thing to do despite the fact that not walking a dog isn't necessarily bad. For the purposes of this thread though, let's stick to interpersonal morality.

I don't think there's a necessarily objective way to evaluate the good of the effects of the action, for example....

Someone kills someone. Is it bad for the killed? Probably. Is it good for someone else? Possibly. If it's good for enough other people....does it suddenly become a good and moral thing to do? Is it always bad because it's bad for the person killed?

zippy2006 · Jul 6, 2020

Econ4every1 said:
Then we have hit a roadblock and I'm not sure it's worth discussing this further. No hard feelings, we just disagree, but I'll leave you with this if you think it's worth discussing further.

I would assert that the concept of value is entirely a sentient construct.

But then you've just redefined "value" to fit your analytic system instead of engaging with what the word actually means. Water has value in the context of trees because water is "of great use or service" to trees.

To say that water is valuable to trees is to make the subjective observation that trees should have water.

That trees need water is not a subjective observation according to your own definition. It's no small problem that you contradict your own definitions of subjective and objective at every turn. That trees need water is not, "based on how we feel about them or how they make us feel."

Why should trees have water?

I have not claimed that trees should have water, I have claimed that water is valuable to trees because trees need water to live and grow.

Any answer you give will be entirely from a subjective perspective that requires that you qualify your answers in a way that only a being that has consciousness can do.

Possible answer:

Because without water trees will die.

To which I say, so what?

Now any answer you try to give will be subjective.

This is non-sequitur. Water has value to trees, and this is an objective statement according to your own definition of objective.

Right, but aliens are subjects and their own systems of valuation will come into play.

No, you're begging the question. Identifying value relationships within a system does not require personal valuation. For example, a entomologist is able to study objective relationships within a bee colony as well as value relationships between the bees and their environment without bringing his personal tastes, preferences, and values to bear. Not all propositions about the world are human projections. :doh:

They might see us as no different than rocks (which are objects) and kill us without a second thought.

If they concluded that we are rocks they would be mistaken, and I'm not sure why they would try to kill a rock.

If they see us as subjects, they may choose to value our existence or, because consciousness is capable of choices, may choose to kill us anyway for selfish desires because they don't value human existence.

We've been through this: it is perfectly possible to value the existence of a non-subject. They could value our existence even if they see us as rocks.

The point here is, that it's all based on subjects and the values they hold.

Dear me...

Zippy: An alien species could observe us and construct an accurate virtue ethics for our species without consulting either our personal values or their personal values.

Econ: An alien species could see us, deem us to be lacking in value according to their personal preferences, and kill us.

Zippy: So what? What does that have to do with my point? What does that have to do with the question of whether something can have value apart from preferential valuations? What does that have to do with the question of whether intellectual agents can observe value as well as impute it? This is just another non-sequitur statement.

Objects cannot value, they can only exist in whatever state they exist in. From a rock's point of view, there is no "good" or "bad" state of existence, there is just existence.

You keep saying that. So what? What in the world does this have to do with our conversation? Has anyone in the world claimed that rocks have feelings? Who are you correcting or instructing with this statement that you keep repeating?

Exactly, but is an inch an objective idea or concept?

I would say no because the decision to make an inch the distance in space that it is, depended entirely on how we felt about it.

An inch is a stipulative distance, but it wasn't stipulated on the basis of feeling. Of course all concepts and ideas are mind-generated. If by "subjective" you mean "mind-generated" then every concept is subjective even if its referent is an objective reality. Of course this would be a very strange definition of subjective.

I see.

I didn't think it was necessary to be so precise in my answer to; what is subjective and objective? I figured you were checking to see that I understood the terms same as you. Now you seem to trying to split hairs, so here, let me be more specific

Subjective- Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

So the distance in space an inch covers is an opinion. I would go on to say that inches are the length they are based on our objective experience of reality and our desire to quantify it. In other words, the distance that we call an inch is what it is subjectively, not to be confused with arbitrary because it is useful. it could have been 10% longer or shorter and it would have been just as useful (thin centimeter), but if the smallest common unit (non-fraction) of measurement was what you and I know of as 10' long, I'd argue it would have been of lesser utility as most common items we'd measure would be fractions which are harder for humans to deal with, relatively speaking.

But the length of an inch really isn't an opinion, it's a stipulation. It's just establishing a regular spatial quantity and giving it a name. There aren't multiple opinions about what an inch is.

The question, "Is an inch objective?" requires more clarity. It's not clear what the question is asking.

"Is the inch-quantity associated with the word 'inch' in a way that is necessary and objective, apart from minds, stipulation, and intersubjective agreement?" (No, we could have named it something else)
"Is the inch-quantity itself objective?" (Yes, the length remains what it is regardless of what people think)

Are you aware of another reality?

Words are a collection of arbitrary symbols combined to create words. Words are assembled in such a way as to attempt to describe reality (at least in the context of what we're discussing). The word inch has only one meaning. If you tell the cashier at Home Depot that the board you just bought isn't 120 inches it's 60 using inches in your reality, she'll give you a funny look and probably just give you the total cost for a board of 120 inches. If you refuse to pay the 120 price at some point they'll send security, what won't happen is that you'll be allowed to pay a 60-inch price for a 120-inch board because you convinced them that it's only 60 inches in your reality.

So you're finally admitting that an inch is an objective measurement?

But, once we agree, we give it a name and create physical representations that represent its distance and share it with others who recognize it and adopt it, from that point an inch is objectively an inch within the subjective framework under which it was created.

I think you're getting warmer with this statement.

You seem to be struggling with an equivocation between a sign and the reality it signifies. For example, "inch" is a sign and [25.4mm] is the reality it signifies. The sign is stipulative; the thing signified is not. Yet to identify the sign with the stipulation and call it "subjective" is just to misunderstand how signs work. Signs points to realities other than themselves. "Inch" points to a distance, not to the alphabetic sign. Neither does it point to the sign-signified coupling. Thus when we talk about what an inch is, we are talking about the distance, not the sign or the coupling. You have this very odd tendency to focus on the four letters, i-n-c-h, and ignore what they signify, in order to try to make everything subjective.

The connection between sign and signified is stipulative and mind-dependent, sure. I don't think anyone contests that. That doesn't mean that the signified--which is called forth by the sign--is subjective. Just because a subject uses a word to describe a distance does not mean the distance is subjective. The fact that a subject uses their hands to touch the grass does not mean that the grass is subjective. The fact that a subject uses their eyes to view the world does not mean the world is subjective. Not everything falls into neat categories of "subjective" and "objective," in large part because the subject's mode of interaction with the world is itself largely objective. That is, there is a correspondence and continuity of the subject with the "external world."

Econ4every1 · Jul 6, 2020

Ana the Ist said:
Well not every moral action affects other people. For example if someone takes their dog for a walk I may say that's a good thing to do despite the fact that not walking a dog isn't necessarily bad. For the purposes of this thread though, let's stick to interpersonal morality.

Agreed, I wrote people because I was being lazy, I should have said:

"but rather how the particular behavior or action affects conscious creatures".

Ana the Ist said:
Someone kills someone. Is it bad for the killed? Probably.

Again, we're getting into trouble with words, so I'll assume when you say killed you mean murder as I'm sure we can agree not all killing is unjustified.

Ana the Ist said:
does it suddenly become a good and moral thing to do? Is it always bad because it's bad for the person killed?

Morality, unfortunately, does not lend itself to easy answers. One of the things I think that get's us (us being those who consider and act on moral propositions) into trouble is trying to create one-size-fits-all descriptions of good and bad.

It's not hard for me to create a scenario where I tell a story to someone and ask them if actions in the story are good or bad and get one answer, (let's say good) and then and more detail to the story that makes the same outcome bad.

I call this moral calculus. The problem of any calculus is that answers are only as good as the information one has when trying to figure out the problem. And of course, unlike calculus where the products are ambivalent, in questions of morality there are all kinds of land mines for people to step on (proverbial speaking).

Now to your original question, is it bad to kill [murder]?

Taking the life of another person without their consent is bad. Why, because humans, by-and-large agree that human life has value.

Ana the Ist said:
Is it good for someone else? Possibly. If it's good for enough other people....does it suddenly become a good and moral thing to do?

I don't think it being good for an individual its what makes an act good. And act is good based on rather fundamental aspects that all conscious creatures value. Does an action result in health, happiness and/ or well-being? If so it's probably good. But if it results in pain, suffering and/ or sickness, it's probably bad.

Ana the Ist · Jul 6, 2020

Econ4every1 said:
Agreed, I wrote people because I was being lazy, I should have said:

"but rather how the particular behavior or action affects conscious creatures".

Fair enough.

Again, we're getting into trouble with words, so I'll assume when you say killed you mean murder as I'm sure we can agree not all killing is unjustified.

Sure? I don't know exactly what justifies killing to you though.

Morality, unfortunately, does not lend itself to easy answers. One of the things I think that get's us (us being those who consider and act on moral propositions) into trouble is trying to create one-size-fits-all descriptions of good and bad.

Where can we make the objective measurement then? A centimeter of good so to speak.

It's not hard for me to create a scenario where I tell a story to someone and ask them if actions in the story are good or bad and get one answer, (let's say good) and then and more detail to the story that makes the same outcome bad.

I call this moral calculus. The problem of any calculus is that answers are only as good as the information one has when trying to figure out the problem. And of course, unlike calculus where the products are ambivalent, in questions of morality there are all kinds of land mines for people to step on (proverbial speaking).

And knowledge of events is always imperfect.

Now to your original question, is it bad to kill [murder]?

Taking the life of another person without their consent is bad. Why, because humans, by-and-large agree that human life has value.

So regardless of how much good results from the murder...it's always a bad thing?

I don't think it being good for an individual its what makes an act good. And act is good based on rather fundamental aspects that all conscious creatures value. Does an action result in health, happiness and/ or well-being? If so it's probably good. But if it results in pain, suffering and/ or sickness, it's probably bad.

I don't think you can objectively measure such things.

Moral Orel · Jul 7, 2020

Econ4every1 said:
Give me an example?

What new definitions?

What am I ignoring?

How is it logically inconsistent?

You said that "individual morality" is logically inconsistent like a "married bachelor". It isn't. People have personal morals about their own personal behavior. For example, "I shouldn't kill myself". That does not mean that I think suicide is bad for everyone, only that I shouldn't kill myself. Individual morality.

Can you define clearly a "moral decision" for me? I would say that any time you're pondering "Should I do X or should I do Y" you are making a moral decision. Morals are "shoulds" and "oughts". Do you disagree? If so, please give me a better definition.

zippy2006 · Jul 7, 2020

Good article from Public Discourse published yesterday:

On the First Principles of Moral Reason - Public Discourse

The quote from C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man is particularly appropriate:

Unless you accept these without question as being to the world of action what axioms are to the world of theory, you can have no practical principles whatever. You cannot reach them as conclusions: they are premises. You may, since they can give no “reason” for themselves . . . regard them as sentiments: but then you must give up contrasting “real” or “rational” value with sentimental value. All value will be sentimental; and you must confess (on pain of abandoning every value) that all sentiment is not “merely subjective.” You may, on the other hand, regard them as rational—nay as rationality itself—as things so obviously reasonable that they neither demand nor admit proof. But then you must allow that Reason can be practical, that an ought must not be dismissed because it cannot produce some is as its credential. If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly, if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all (40).

Econ4every1 · Jul 7, 2020

zippy2006 said:
Water has value in the context of trees because water is "of great use or service" to trees.

But you are presupposing that trees having water at all is valuable. Why is it valuable for trees to have water?

You are looking at it from the tree's point-of-view. That is, empathetically, you are putting yourself in the tree's place. You know that the tree will die without water and therefore you are thinking about the question of value as if you are the tree (the subject) and proclaiming that survival of trees is something that is valuable.

If you see value in the tree, you will value it receiving water.

You see, you can't escape the subject-object relationship.

In reality, trees don't value water because they can't. They do not possess awareness. They have biological and mechanical functions that can happen in the presence of water. We don't recognize trees as conscious subjects, a tree is an object.

Does my car value gasoline? No more than a tree values water. I value my car having gasoline.

zippy2006 said:
That trees need water is not a subjective observation according to your own definition.

Now you've switched your language from value to need. And again, the presupposition here is that trees should survive. So if we value trees surviving, then a tree receiving water is a good thing. Otherwise, why does it matter if trees live or dies?

This conversation is about morality and how morality stems from the things we value (or wish to avoid) which all revolve around the experience of conscious creatures (subjects). Any value association you make, including trees valuing water, has to start with value laiden statements that you make, not the tree.

Take the statement you make above (emphasis mine):

zippy2006 said:
I have not claimed that trees should have water, I have claimed that water is valuable to trees because trees need water to live and grow.

So much subtly here to wrench apart....

I didn't say you said, "trees should have water", I asked, "why should trees have water?"

I think you tried to sidestep, but you did answer the question.....

And your answer was "to live and grow".

See the qualifier you had to add?

But that inexorably leads to the glaringly obvious question....

Why should trees live and grow?

I'm not saying that you think they should, but you did offer this as an answer to why trees should have water, implying that tress should in fact live and grow.

Is there an objective reason that you think that trees should live and grow apart from feelings or opinions?

No.

Subjects consciously value, objects do not. Even when you tried to find an example with an object, a tree, and discuss what it values, water, you had to qualify it with something that is entirely subjective and relates back to your values, not the trees', that being the desire "to live and grow". Since trees care incapable of desire, it is you that has projected your value system onto the tree.

I hope you can see the flaw here.

zippy2006 said:
Not all propositions about the world are human projections.

Not human, conscious. Though I admit I've written some of this from a very human point-of-view to make it easier to understand, in reality, only conscious creatures can have systems of value.

zippy2006 said:
If they concluded that we are rocks they would be mistaken, and I'm not sure why they would try to kill a rock.

Apologies for not being clear as that is not what I meant.

I didn't say if "if they concluded that we are rocks", I said, "They might see us as no different than rocks". Meaning they may not see any more value in humans than they see in rocks.

zippy2006 said:
We've been through this: it is perfectly possible to value the existence of a non-subject. They could value our existence even if they see us as rocks.

That's not what I meant, but in short, aliens in this context are the "subject" and if they possess consciousness, they can value rocks, humans or whatever. There are no objects doing the valuing.

zippy2006 said:
You keep saying that. So what? What in the world does this have to do with our conversation? Has anyone in the world claimed that rocks have feelings? Who are you correcting or instructing with this statement that you keep repeating?

You said objects can value, your example was the tree, I think I demonstrated that you are really projecting your own value system onto an object. So it's not the object that values, it's you.

zippy2006 said:
An inch is a stipulative distance, but it wasn't stipulated on the basis of feeling.

Not feeling, opinion. Opinion is by definition subjective.

zippy2006 said:
If by "subjective" you mean "mind-generated"

Subjective opinion, that's what I mean.

zippy2006 said:
then every concept is subjective even if its referent is an objective reality.

Not at all, the system of numbers is subjective, but what they measure is not. One relates to set theory and we can show the concept of "one" is an objective truth, the only subjective part of it, is the words and symbols we use to describe it.

In the case of an inch, the word is subjective and the distance in space it measures is subjective, but once it's been established and widely accepted, within the subjective framework created, an inch is objectively an inch.

zippy2006 said:
But the length of an inch really isn't an opinion, it's a stipulation.

Stipulation according to Websters: a condition, requirement, or item specified in a legal instrument.

Tell me how the word stipulation superceeds the fact that the length and name for an inch is an opinion.

zippy2006 said:
So you're finally admitting that an inch is an objective measurement?

No, I'm saying that there is more than one way you have to evaluate the subject-object relationship.

The distance an inch represents was chosen as a matter of opinion, informed opinion, but opinion none-the-less.

Once the standard has been created, circulated and broadly agreed to such that people know what you mean when you say "inch". Within that subjective context, an inch is objectively an inch.

zippy2006 said:
The sign is stipulative; the thing signified is not.

I agree the physical distance in space is not, but that's not at all what I'm talking about. So let's recap.

The term "inch" and the distance it represents was chosen subjectively. It was a choice, an opinion. When you say it is a stipulation, I'd ask a stipulation of what? And how does being a stipulation refute my claim that the choice of what distance in space is what we call an inch?

zippy2006 said:
You seem to be struggling with an equivocation between a sign and the reality it signifies.

How so? How have I become confused here? An example?

zippy2006 said:
Just because a subject uses a word to describe a distance does not mean the distance is subjective.

Did someone find the distance in space that represents an inch as some fundamental property of the universe?

No, the inch was chosen because it was useful at the length people chose at the time. Today we have the metric system which can be measured against objective facts about the universe (things like light and gravity), but that does not make the distances objective, we still chose to make the marks on the ruler equivalent to some constant of the universe. That is an opinion and therefore subjective.

Econ4every1 · Jul 7, 2020

Moral Orel said:
You said that "individual morality" is logically inconsistent like a "married bachelor". It isn't. People have personal morals about their own personal behavior. For example, "I shouldn't kill myself". That does not mean that I think suicide is bad for everyone, only that I shouldn't kill myself. Individual morality.

Can you define clearly a "moral decision" for me? I would say that any time you're pondering "Should I do X or should I do Y" you are making a moral decision. Morals are "shoulds" and "oughts". Do you disagree? If so, please give me a better definition.

I would simply say that morals are meaningless without some relationship to something you value (or wish to avoid). orals are a way to achieve some shared value. So I can't really answer your question until we have a conversation about values. If we agree that theft is bad, then a moral statement might be stealing is wrong.

Can you think of a moral statement that isn't grounded in a value? If you can, I'm probably going to question whether it's really a moral statement.

That said, let me concede that morality can be defined exactly the way you say, and indeed many people think of it that way.

But, I'd simply assert what I've already said, what does it mean to be moral outside the context of others?

I mean, going to the extreme if you were all alone in the universe, what would it mean to be moral? I mean, you might still have ideas about what is good and bad like "punching myself in the face is bad" and "breathing is good", but I fail to see how these statements don't simply resolve down to the brutally obvious and really just mean "good" and "bad".

So if I concede that people can have their own concepts of morality, I assert that they are meaningless in any useful sense outside the context of the groups, communities and social systems that people live and interact within.

Econ4every1 · Jul 7, 2020

I want to take just a moment and thank everyone for a really interesting and stimulating conversation. I really value when others challenge my own notions about what I believe as people like yourself always find a way to ask questions in a way I couldn't have ever have anticipated. It gives me the opportunity to reflect on what I've learned and of course, everyone here who has contributed has taught me something too.

Thank you!

Econ4every1 · Jul 7, 2020

Ana the Ist said:
Sure? I don't know exactly what justifies killing to you though.

With respect, don't you think this is really a distraction from the conversation we're having? I mean, we can sit here and contemplate the concept of justified killing, but I'm not sure how it advances the conversation about morality. I mean, unless I'm missing something?

Ana the Ist said:
Where can we make the objective measurement then? A centimeter of good so to speak.

When it comes to morality, there is no "objective measurement" independent of what we think and feel. Now here is where people usually fall off the rails. People often misinterpret "subjective opinion" as meaning literally anything. People confuse subjective with arbitrary. "They" say, "will if morality is subjective then you can believe that any act is ok".

Two things.

First morality isn't the beginning it's the result of a value system that relates back to the experience of conscious creatures.

Second, I'd argue that any system of morality not based in our values is immoral because what's right and wrong no longer can be said to experience and relate to real states of happiness and suffering. Any moral system imposed upon us as true via proclamation, even if it does promote happiness and wellbeing lacks the justification for being a system we should follow. If the proclamation changed and said that things that cause suffering are good, again by proclamation, on what grounds could anyone say it's wrong?

Ana the Ist said:
And knowledge of events is always imperfect.

100% agree, which is why moral systems thought history is imperfect, though as knowledge is gained we improve.

As far as individual events, again totally agree which is why when making moral decisions a person should have as much information as possible. Said another way, the quality of a moral decision is often in some relation to the information and knowledge of those making the decision/s.

Ana the Ist said:
So regardless of how much good results from the murder...it's always a bad thing?

There are no absolutes in morality.

Are you familiar with the Trolly Problem?

Ana the Ist said:
I don't think you can objectively measure such things.

I agree.

durangodawood · Jul 7, 2020

Just checking in.

Are people still trying to claim that utterly non-demonstrable moral rules revealed from a totally non-demonstrable other-realm should be called "objective"?

Ana the Ist · Jul 7, 2020

Econ4every1 said:
With respect, don't you think this is really a distraction from the conversation we're having? I mean, we can sit here and contemplate the concept of justified killing, but I'm not sure how it advances the conversation about morality. I mean, unless I'm missing something?

Well it certainly illustrates part of the problem.

When it comes to morality, there is no "objective measurement" independent of what we think and feel.

What we think and feel is subjective. To be objective, it would have to be true apart from these things.

Two things.

First morality isn't the beginning it's the result of a value system that relates back to the experience of conscious creatures.

Second, I'd argue that any system of morality not based in our values is immoral because what's right and wrong no longer can be said to experience and relate to real states of happiness and suffering. Any moral system imposed upon us as true via proclamation, even if it does promote happiness and wellbeing lacks the justification for being a system we should follow.

True? How could a moral system be true?

There are no absolutes in morality.

Then it can't possibly be objective .

Econ4every1 · Jul 7, 2020

Ana the Ist said:
Then it can't possibly be objective .

If I asked 100 people what this is, what do you think most if not all of them might say??

Ana the Ist · Jul 7, 2020

Econ4every1 said:
If I asked 100 people what this is, what do you think most if not all of them might say??

View attachment 280471

A jpeg?

Econ4every1 · Jul 7, 2020

Ana the Ist said:
A jpeg?

That's what you think 100 people would say? Seems I was giving you a little too much credit? :scratch:

Ken-1122 · Jul 7, 2020

Econ4every1 said:
Ok, so as long time member but an infrequent poster, I want to write a little preface before this post. I don't consider myself Christian though I grew up in a culture steeped in the Christian tradition and its values. I don't consider myself anti-Christian, but I take issue with a few things that Christians sometimes advocate for. I respect a person's right to choose their faith or lack of except when that faith meets in the "public square" and those without faith (or of a different faith) are asked to make special considerations based on one particular faith alone.

This topic is about morality which hits home for most Christians. it's hard to have this discussion without inadvertently questioning the foundation of Christain faith and belief, at least for most people who identify as Christian. It isn't my goal to invalidate Christianity, though morality is so intertwined in Christian faith and for some, one of the main reasons for believing in god in the first place. Thus, this will be a sensitive topic and I'll do my best not to insult those of the Christin faith, but if you are a Christian who is easily offended, may I suggest you look at other topics.

Respectfully,

E4E1

It is my assertion that all morality is subjective, however, morality can be objective within a value framework.

Let me try with an analogy.

How tall are you?

Now, are you objectively that tall?

Assuming that you give your answer in a formally recognized measurement like the Imperial or Metric system (just to name 2), the answer is YES! After all, if when you stand beside a ruler that is graduated like every other ruler and you measure 6' tall, you are objectively 6' tall relative to the system of measurement.

But are these systems themselves objective? Of course not. The lines on a ruler aren't an objective standard that exists independently of us. We created it, subjectively. Further, the distances we chose to represent inches, feet, yards, and mile weren't chosen at random or arbitrarily, they were chosen to achieve real-world goals (making the point that subjectively does not mean random or arbitrary).

The point being is that it is possible for objectivity to exist within a subjective framework.

A foot is objectively a foot. If a being on the other side of the universe refers to a foot as something other than the distance we all recognize, then objectively the being is not talking about the imperial system of measurement.

I hope that makes sense. I also think this is where a lot of confusion comes from. We all know good from bad and the idea that we need to instructed what is good and bad, to me is silly.

Take the proposition, vanilla ice cream is is better than chocolate. One would struggle to find a statement more subjective than that!

But if I said, eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of broken glass. If I said Vanilla is better, is that just my opinion?

Well, that depends, if we agree that most people value their lives, within the context of that value, it is objectively true that eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of glass. I don't need to be told to know that it's true.

And so....

All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand. Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.

So, when it comes to deciding what is morally right and what is morally wrong, a subject (a person) must apply their subjective valuation of the issue before they can decide where they stand. For example, if a person places a high value on the sanctity of marriage, they will probably consider adultery to be immoral because it violates the sanctity of marriage. A person who places a low value on telling the truth might not see lying as immoral.

For morality to be objective, it must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue. I can’t think of any moral issue that meets those requirements.

For example, if it was objectively true that lying is always immoral, and telling the truth is always moral, then all the people who sought to hide Jews from the Germans during WWII acted immorally whenever they lied to German authorities as to the whereabouts of any Jews the Germans sought. Clearly, however, we would understand it to have been immoral for people to give up the locations of Jewish families in hiding if those people were, in fact, trying to hide and protect those Jewish families. So it cannot be true that it is objectively immoral to lie.

Now, it’s possible to objectively evaluate morality itself, but that’s not the same as morality being objective.

So how do we determine what is right?

First, let me say that morality is not an individual pursuit. That is, people can have ideas about what they think morality should be, but there is no such thing as "individual morality". Just as there is no such thing as a married bachelor. Let's use a sports analogy here. In the game of Soccer, it is considered wrong for anyone but the goalie to use their hands. What if one person picked up the ball and carried it to the other end ignoring all the rules and then proclaimed that he had his own interpretation of the rules?

What do you think would happen to that player?

Similarly, if a ran a store and you came in and asked for a 10lb roast and I handed you a 1lb roast and charged you the 10lb price, you'd rightly be pretty upset. If I said my "personal standard of measurement" was different than the commonly accepted standard, what do you think might happen?

Lastly, what would you say to a person who commits a heinous crime and then simply proclaims that their standard of right and wrong is their own and therefore you can't judge them, what do we do with these kinds of people?

So what we're left with is a framework that looks like this:

Values--->Morality--->Ethics.

Thus it is what we value that lays the foundation for what we believe is right and wrong. Morality is a social construct where people come together and share their ideas about what is right and wrong based on the values they hold.

If we have been wrong about morality in the past, and of course we have, it's because we lacked information and understanding. The things we believed were wrong and that in turn lead to ideas and beliefs that resulted in values that did not live up to the standards we create for ourselves.

For example, the Constitution of the United States says "All men are created equal", but that's not how it worked in practice is it? Why? Because our beliefs and understanding lead to ideas that weren't consistent with our values.

There is more and I suspect that some of you will point out what you see to be flaws in my thinking and I look forward to filling in the gaps in my responses to any challenges I get.

-Cheers

I don’t think morality can be objective because morality is the distinction between right/wrong, good/bad and I don’t believe there is an objective definition of good/bad, right/wrong, they are all subjective.

Objective morality, can it exist? Sort of....

Active Member

Active Member

Aggressively serene!

Active Member

Aggressively serene!

Dragonsworn

Active Member

Aggressively serene!

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Dragonsworn

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Dis Member

Aggressively serene!

Active Member

Aggressively serene!

Active Member

Newbie

Similar threads