Is morality Objective?

[mepalmer3]

There is a difference between some people struggling to understand math and then everyone coming to a consensus when they are properly informed (Because math is objective and absolute) and every single culture in the history of the planet having a different opinion on what 2+2 is. The former can happen with regard to an objective system, but the latter is indicitive that the system is not absolute in any stretch of the word. Morality is not of the former, it is of the latter.

So far your whole argument against an objective, absolute morality seems to be a simple assertion that morality comes from our feelings.

With respect to your last statement, virtually all people do agree on the basics, (ie, that human life is valuable, that helping people is good, while hurting people is bad). There isn't a reasonable person in the world that seems to say otherwise.

 

[Fledge]

I'm going to focus on your argument here, as I'm not really sure how best to argue the rest at the moment.

I'm not assuming it's false, I'm proving it's false. If you wish to challenge my conclusion, you must disprove a premise. So if 1 is wrong, disprove 1. If any premise is wrong, prove to me that it is wrong. You're just speaking hypothetically, but if you wish to refute my argument, you have to actually disprove my premise(s).

Your proof is based on your opinion that objective morality is false. The initial premise is that morality is based on desires. However, this can only be the case if objective morality is false, so your initial premise is rooted in your conclusion, which makes your argument a case of circular reasoning.

Now I could be misinterpreting you (again ), but I'll wait to hear back from you on that.

Fledge

 

[Fledge]

For any moral objectivists out there:

What are some other things besides morality that exist objectively? Please be specific.

What is it about those things that lets us know that they are objective? What makes them identifiably objective?

:æ:

And what kind of evidence would you require someone to produce before accepting something as objective (such as truth)? My rather limited experience with you would indicate that there is no value in debating something with you without knowing what exactly you would consider valid evidence, so I'll wait for your response before attempting any kind of an argument.

Fledge

 

[:æ:]

And what kind of evidence would you require someone to produce before accepting something as objective (such as truth)?

I think you misunderstood my questions. I want to know what other things you believe are "objective," and what you think it is that makes them qualify to be so described.

My rather limited experience with you would indicate that there is no value in debating something with you without knowing what exactly you would consider valid evidence, so I'll wait for your response before attempting any kind of an argument.

It's not about what I consider to be "objective," but what you do. I think it would help us understand eachother better, though, if you tried to think of things that we are likely to agree are objective. That's just a suggestion -- take it or leave it -- but please do try to answer my questions.

:æ:

 

[Fledge]

I think you misunderstood my questions. I want to know what other things you believe are "objective," and what you think it is that makes them qualify to be so described.



It's not about what I consider to be "objective," but what you do. I think it would help us understand eachother better, though, if you tried to think of things that we are likely to agree are objective. That's just a suggestion -- take it or leave it -- but please do try to answer my questions.

:æ:

I'm afraid that you have misunderstood me. I have no reason to believe that you think that anything is objective. If I am correct in believing that you think that everything is subjective, then my saying what I believe to be objective will trigger a debate. I have no intention of getting into a debate that I will lose by default, which is exactly what would happen if I were to try to debate with you on a subject in which there is no "rules" that make it possible for me to "win".

So even though I'd be happy to answer the questions, and to help you understand why I think the way I do, I'm not going to get dragged into an impossible debate. If you would be willing to give me at least a general idea of what you would consider solid evidence/proof, I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue with you.

Fledge

 

[:æ:]

If you would be willing to give me at least a general idea of what you would consider solid evidence/proof, I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue with you.

I'm not asking for proof.

I don't know how to make this any more simple than that.

I want to know what you think are some other "objective" things, and I want to know why you think they should be called "objective."

I'm not asking you to prove that anything is objective.

Do you understand now?

You don't need to know anything about my standards of proof in order to answer my questions.

:æ:

 

[Socrastein]

You know my argument does look a little like circular reasoning. However, I think we're just dealing with obvious subject matter, which becomes clear when analyzed logically, and thus the proof I gave was so simple and flowed so directly it almost appeared circular. I'm actually not sure if it would be circular to be honest. Let me give an example of another proof that is so obvious it appears circular.

The surface of the sun is 5800k.
If the surface of the sun is more than 350k, it is hot.
The surface of the sun is hot.

Now, it seems this is circular, because one could argue that I "started with my conclusion". But we didn't start with "the sun is hot", we started with "the sun is X degrees" and then demonstrated that this made it hot.

I believe my proof is the same. I didn't start with "morality is subjective", I started with where morality comes from, and then demonstrated that this made it subjective. Maybe both proofs are circular reasoning, but if they're circular then the argument wasn't even necessary - I need only assert that morality is a description of our desires. If that automatically makes it subjective, then morality is obviously subjective.

And yes, virtually all people do agree on the basics. But I don't think this has anything to do with absolute morality, I think this has to do with society. I have already explained this causal link extensively in this thread, so I won't revisit my previous arguments. Suffice to say, it's not more indicitive of objective morality that nearly everyone in society values socially conducive action than it is indicitive of objective taste that nearly everyone thinks dog poop is disgusting. Some things are common sense, this needn't be evidence or proof of transcendent metaphysical, absolute moral laws. If you give someone a pair of pants, they're not going to try and put it on like a shirt. Even if they've never seen pants before. So is everyone spiritually in tune with a metaphysical absolute standard of clothing? Or do people just have a degree of common sense? If everyone killed everyone, we'd all be dead or soon to be dead. So seeing murder as a bad thing is common sense. If everyone stole from everyone, pretty soon it'd be pointless trying to acquire property and goods. So seeing theft as a bad thing is common sense. But just as tastes vary the more you get away from the extremes, so does morality vary the more you get away from the extremes.

To answer ae, so maybe Fledge will see what he's asking:

I think logic is objective. It is based on a system of axioms that are self-evident and undeniable, such as the law of noncontradiction, law of identity, law of excluded middle, modus ponens, modus tollens, and others. Anyone who rationally approaches logic and is taught it sufficiently will immediately see the truth to it and you're not going to find people who disagree (In their right mind) with it. The most laws of logic are true by definition, which is about as objective as you can get.

Also math would qualify, since math is a deductive axiomatic system very much like logic, just a more specific application of logical principles and deduction to specific mathematical axioms.

 

[Fledge]

The surface of the sun is 5800k.
If the surface of the sun is more than 350k, it is hot.
The surface of the sun is hot.

I don't think this is quite the same thing though, Socrastein. The surface (area?) of the sun can be measured, and experiments could indicate that any value over x is hot. This would be a valid, non-circular proof. However, stating that morality is based on desires doesn't fit the same mold. You are making an observation that is only true 100% of the time in a morally subjective universe, but in a morally objective universe, your initial premise won't necessarily be true. So it appears to me that I can accept your initial premise only if I already accept your conclusion.

I'm not asking for proof.

I don't know how to make this any more simple than that.

I want to know what you think are some other "objective" things, and I want to know why you think they should be called "objective."

I'm not asking you to prove that anything is objective.

Do you understand now?

You don't need to know anything about my standards of proof in order to answer my questions.

:æ:

The thing is, ae, if I am correct in assuming that you don't believe that anything is objective, then anything I try to show as objective will most likely trigger a debate. I would be more than happy to debate this subject with you, but I'm not going to start a debate like that unless I know that it will be a level playing field. To illustrate what I'm getting at, I'll tell a fictional story.

Jake is an atheist, but his wife is not. She thinks that he's never even given the idea of there being a God a fair chance. She bugs him to "Give God a chance" so much that one day he decides to do so. So while he is sitting in his kitchen, he says, "God, if you exist, send me a sign." Immediately, there is a small earthquake, but Jake just shrugs his shoulders. "There's a fault line just three miles from here, and it causes baby 'quakes all the time, so this doesn't prove anything at all." So Jake asks God for a sign again, and an instant later a bolt of lightning strikes just outside his window. Once again, Jake is not convinced, after all, the place he lives in has lots of heat lightning, so the lightning doesn't prove anything either. After several more incidents like this one, Jake goes about his business even more firmly convinced that God does not exist, because surely God would have sent him a sign when he asked for one.

Now I know that this story is kind of far-fetched, but I think the point is valid. Jake would not have been convinced no matter what God might have done, because he always would have been able to find some natural cause for what had happened. If he had asked for something specific (like a lightning strike or an earthquake), then the lightning or the earthquake would probably have convinced him. However, because Jake never said anything specific, it didn't matter what God did, because Jake would have most likely been able to find some kind of a natural explanation for it.

Trying to debate with someone like Jake about the existence of God is like shooting at a target that randomly teleports around the shooting range. You draw a bead on where the target is, and just when you think you're finally going to get a blast it, it vanishes and you find out that you just wasted all that time you spent trying to aim properly.

This is why I'm not going to try and discuss things that I think are objective. At the moment, I have no way of knowing whether the "target" that I would be trying to hit in the ensuing debate would hold still or not. If it does hold still, then it would be a resonably even debate. If it wouldn't then I would just get frustrated. So that's why I've responded to you the way that I have.

 

[:æ:]

The thing is, ae, if I am correct in assuming that you don't believe that anything is objective, then anything I try to show as objective will most likely trigger a debate.

I'm not trying to debate your selection of examples!!!

Good grief! Can't you just answer a simple question?

I just want to know what criteria moral objectivists use to identify an objective thing. I thought the best way would be to ask what other things moral objectivists think are objective, and what criteria they use to categorize them as objective. It doesn't matter what I think, because you should already know what you think, and that's all I'm asking for.

Now, do you have an answer or not?

:æ:

 

[Fledge]

It looks like I completely misunderstood your intentions, ae, I'm sorry. I leaped to an unwarranted conclusion, and I apologize.

I would consider truth to be objective. This is a direct extension of my belief in God as much as it is anything else.

 

[Socrastein]

in a morally objective universe, your initial premise won't necessarily be true.

Well then who's the one assuming conclusions? I already said my first premise is debatable. My first premise is not my conclusion, my first premise necessitates my conclusion as I have shown. Just like the sun example - the first premise isn't the conclusion, the first premise necessitates the conclusion.

So like I've said, if you wish to debate my syllogism, and we've both agreed the first premise is what necessitates my conclusion, then you need to disprove my first premise to have any sort of an argument against subjective morality.

 

[:æ:]

It looks like I completely misunderstood your intentions, ae, I'm sorry. I leaped to an unwarranted conclusion, and I apologize.

I would consider truth to be objective. This is a direct extension of my belief in God as much as it is anything else.

Okay, thanks. The more I think about this, I think it will require it's own thread. I'm leaving for a week-long vacation, however, so I think I'll kick one off when I get back unless I have time on the internet while I'm away. Thanks for your answer, anyway, and look for the thread sometime in the near future.

:æ:

 

[mepalmer3]

Well then who's the one assuming conclusions? I already said my first premise is debatable. My first premise is not my conclusion, my first premise necessitates my conclusion as I have shown. Just like the sun example - the first premise isn't the conclusion, the first premise necessitates the conclusion.

So like I've said, if you wish to debate my syllogism, and we've both agreed the first premise is what necessitates my conclusion, then you need to disprove my first premise to have any sort of an argument against subjective morality.

You know... I don't think you ever formally wrote out your syllogism.

Why do you think morality comes from desire? Or wait... you're saying that morality doesn't truly exist, rather our desires exist. Is that right?

 

[Socrastein]

Mepalmer, my posts are bright green so just scroll around and look for them. I did write out my syllogism, and I explained exactly what I think morality is.

 

[mepalmer3]

Mepalmer, my posts are bright green so just scroll around and look for them. I did write out my syllogism, and I explained exactly what I think morality is.

You never actually did write out your argument in a syllogism form.

 

[Socrastein]

Morality is based on desires (As I have reasoned, though this is the contestable premise)
If morality is absolute, desires are absolute (from the fact that morality is based on desires)
Desires are not absolute (Observed fact)

Conclusion: Morality is not absolute (Modus Tollens from premise 2 and 3)

Post #67. That entire post is actually in bold, cause I was experimenting with whether bold or unbolded green was better. How did you miss it?

 

[Marz Blak]

[...]
With respect to your last statement, virtually all people do agree on the basics, (ie, that human life is valuable, that helping people is good, while hurting people is bad). There isn't a reasonable person in the world that seems to say otherwise.
[...]

Sorry to interject myself into this very interesting discussion, but I have to put in a few words here. I simply do not agree that human life is valuable in any 'objective' sense.

It is valuable to me subjectively, and to *us humans* inter-subjectively, but that's as much as I'm willing to say.

And I do not feel that this is an unreasonable position to hold.

 

[mepalmer3]

1. Morality is based on desires (As I have reasoned, though this is the contestable premise)
2. If morality is absolute, desires are absolute (from the fact that morality is based on desires)
3. Desires are not absolute (Observed fact)

I added the numbers.

Ahh... yeah, the first premise is definitely debateable.

But I'll try to use it anyway... except christians definitely don't say that morality comes from christians, but from God. So let me rewrite it from the christian perspective:

1. Morality is based upon God's desires.
2. If morality is absolute, then God's desire must be absolute.
3. God's desire is absolute.
4. Therefore morality is absolute.

Some useful questions to ask...
A. Do we think all people are moral? No.
B. Do we think ourselves as being completely moral? Definitely not.
C. Do our feelings and desires always align with what we think is moral? Nope.

With this in mind, it's not very difficult to see that morality isn't in fact based upon feelings and desires. Although there is still likely a correllation. If morality is from God and is absolute, and we have the ability to disobey that moral law, then our choices and thus our desires are not apt to be consistent or absolute. We should in fact sometimes feel "torn" or feel like we've done something wrong. We should feel like our desire was or is the wrong desire. Similarly we should think some desires as being "right" or good. And of course we would have the same ideas about the people around us.

 

[Fledge]

Well then who's the one assuming conclusions? I already said my first premise is debatable. My first premise is not my conclusion, my first premise necessitates my conclusion as I have shown. Just like the sun example - the first premise isn't the conclusion, the first premise necessitates the conclusion.

So like I've said, if you wish to debate my syllogism, and we've both agreed the first premise is what necessitates my conclusion, then you need to disprove my first premise to have any sort of an argument against subjective morality.

I think that what I said is the crux of my disagreement with your initial premise. Your initial premise can only be relied upon if your conclusion is true. So if I am going to believe your initial premise, I must first believe the conclusion that is based on the premise. This still looks circular to me, and therefore your argument is invalid.

I might still be missing your point, but unless your initial premise is always true (which is clearly not the case), then you are left with a fairly weak argument that is based on a crumbly premise.

Fledge

 

[Socrastein]

Mepalmer:

You can say morality from an absolute desire is absolute, that's fine. However, you have not contested my premise that our morality is a reflection of our desires. You say that we often do things that we do not morally desire. I never said that we always act on our morality, I simply said our morality is a reflection of what we desire. The common Christian believes in God and his absolute morality, and thus they DESIRE to follow it as best they can. Because they desire to fulfill God's law, and see God's law fulfilled, then right and wrong will become what is conducive and what is inhibitive to this.

If someone did not desire to fulfill God's law, then they wouldn't see it as wrong to break God's law. To adhere to God's law, one must desire to. Unless of course that person is being forced against their wishes to desire God's law, but that doesn't really apply to anyone.

Fledge:

Once again, the premise is not the conclusion, the premise necessitates the conclusion. If one of my premises were "Desires are absolute" then morality would be absolute, and yet my initial premise would be the same. So if my initial premise can be the same, but my conclusion can differ by changing another premise, then my initial premise is not my conclusion obviously.

And if it's so "crumbly", get to disproving it will ya