Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

subjective (adj.)
c. 1500, "characteristic of one who is submissive or obedient," from Late Latin subiectivus "of the subject, subjective," from subiectus "lying under, below, near bordering on," figuratively "subjected, subdued"(see subject (n.)). In early Modern English as "existing, real;" more restricted meaning "existing in the mind" (the mind as "the thinking subject") is from 1707, popularized by Kant and his contemporaries; thus, in art and literature, "personal, idiosyncratic" (1767). Related: Subjectively; subjectiveness.
​

I reject your post Kantian interpretation.

Involuntary experiences we experience, involuntarily, as wrongs, are no less objective phenomena than pain.

I dont care, its still not objective.

 

[VirOptimus]

Except that wrongs exist as objective phenomena, there is simply no reason to bother with morality at all.

Where do the ”wrongs” exist? What are they made off? Who/what judged them wrong? By which authority?

 

[TheWhat?]

Where do the ”wrongs” exist? What are they made off? Who/what judged them wrong? By which authority?

Where do phenomena exist? What are they made of?

The reason why we seem to struggle with this in morality appears to be motivated.

 

[VirOptimus]

Where do phenomena exist? What are they made of?

The reason why we seem to struggle with this in morality appears to be motivated.

Ok, if you cant answer that then the logical conclusion is that morality isnt objective.

 

[TheWhat?]

Ok, if you cant answer that then the logical conclusion is that morality isnt objective.

That's rationalism at work. Moral rationalism need not be the case, necessarily, for objective morality.

Objective things are. That, simply, is what it means to be objective -- an object, a thing that is.

That you exist as a conscious, sentient entity whose will can be violated in an unwarranted manner means you can be wronged.

Solipsistic tendencies excluded, if you and a potential perpetrator against you are objects, morality is objective. It exists as a consequence of us, and all such living entities are the basis for all morality and moral reasoning.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's rationalism at work. Moral rationalism need not be the case, necessarily, for objective morality.

Objective things are. That, simply, is what it means to be objective -- an object, a thing that is.

Because you exist as a conscious, sentient entity whose will can be violated in an unwarranted manner means you can be wronged.

Solipsistic tendencies excluded, if you and a potential perpetrator against you are objects, morality is objective. It exists as a consequence of us, and all such living entities are the basis for all morality and moral reasoning.

Nope, thats not how it works.

Thsts just a lot of meta-physical blather.

Again, where is this objective morality? By which authority? What is it made of? How do we find it?

 

[TheWhat?]

Nope, thats not how it works.

Thsts just a lot of meta-physical blather.

Again, where is this objective morality? By which authority? What is it made of? How do we find it?

Your solipsism can't eliminate your mortality.

That you can be killed by another existent entity means that the potential for murder exists, which most sensible people accept as self-evidently true, except for solipsists.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Except that wrongs exist as objective phenomena, there is simply no reason to bother with morality at all.

'Except that beauty exists as an objective phenomenon, there is simply no reason to bother with the arts at all.'

It's just not persuasive. Perceived beauty and perceived injustices really do matter. They matter to us, the subjects who behold it.

 

[TheWhat?]

'Except that beauty exists as an objective phenomenon, there is simply no reason to bother with the arts at all.'

It's just not persuasive. Perceived beauty and perceived injustices really do matter. They matter to us, the subjects who behold it.

While that might make for an interesting conversation, art and beauty are too fuzzy to form a clear analogy.

Morality is far more pragmatic.

Consider:

Except that traffic accidents exist as objective phenomena, there is simply no reason to bother with traffic regulations.

Except that workplace accidents exist as objective phenomena, there is simply no reason to bother with workplace safety regulations.
​

We don't need to be grasping at morality as if it's some amorphous essence to determine that there must exist concrete objective facts that serve as a basis for moral reasoning, without which, there isn't much of a point at all.

As I've argued previously in this thread, neither have I assumed that morality, like an amorphous essence, must exist as a singular, uniform thing to be grasped.

Personally I'm inclined to interpret morality as primarily a matter of authority, the violation of personal sovereignty being requisite to a wrong committed. Breaking and entering is experienced involuntarily by the victim as a violation of some necessary personal sovereignty, and this is the case for all of the wrongs we might do to one another.

These are facts which are consequences of our existence, and they present real moral problems which form the basis for my reasoning as follows:

Stanford's encyclopedia defines morality to be used as follows:

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

In either case, my argument assumes that codes of conduct are useless unless they solve some moral problem.

I'll take that further, using the definitions provided in my previous post.

P1: an objective reality exists.

P2: it is this same objective reality which defines all real moral problems.

P3: the effectiveness of any possible code of conduct as a solution to any real moral problem is defined by the same objective reality that defines all real moral problems.

C: there must exist a set of possible codes of conduct which could serve as optimal solutions to real moral problems, and because they are defined by an objective reality, the set can be described as an "objective morality."

 

[Kylie]

Well thats a bit ilogical don't you think. How can some be wrong about liking a TV show when its an opinion or preference.

My point was that such arguments are an example of how peopel can act as though their subjective opinion is an objective fact.

We do have but you don't recognise it. But at the very least it may stop people from claiming it doesnt exist and that subjective morality is all that exists when they cannot possibly know.

I've never seen you present any evidence that can't be explained with subjective morality.

But those reasons are logical fallacies and Ive shown you that.

No you haven't.

It doesnt show its right either. So your claim that you have shown subjective morality is true is also wrong.

I've provided evidence to back up my position.

They can make objective claims but supporting that is a different story. The point I am making is that you want me to provide evdience for my objective claim but you don't seem to apply the same criteria to yourself when you mak ethose objective claims that there is no objective morality.

Except I have provided evidence for my claims, haven't I?

Your attempt at a strawman is obvious.

But we are not talking about any facts but whether there is objective or subjective morality. You claimed there was no objective morality. Thats an objective claim meaning you are right and hold the truth on this matter and everyone else is wrong. Yet you provide no support.

Then why were you going on and making such a big fuss about how I am making an objective claim that there is no objective morality as though I wasn't allowed to do it if I did not also believe there was objective morality?

So what about other ways of supporting facts and truth like with Math or with logical arguements like I have shown. They are still facts and truths.

Well, I've been asking you for AGES to describe morality in the same kind of formal and structured language that we can use for maths and logic, and no one has ever been able to do so.

For example do you think your partner loves you. How do you know this is a fact. You have nothing physical to hold that you can measure yet people think its a fact or truth that they love their partner and their partner loves them.

Well, while I can say it is a fact that my husband has consistently acted in a way that indicates that he loves me, I will freely admit that it is possible that it is some kind of deception.

I mean, I think that's very unlikely, but I can't provide any objective evidence that the possibility is 0%, can I?

So for example when you reply to my posts with an arguement for subjective morality and I decide to reply you will assume that epistemic duties must be present in our debate. You will asume that I ought not misrepresent your arguement and not use logical fallacies. That I should be honest and not lie. You will prescribe these epistemic duties and believe they should be kept and abided by.

But thats the point. Why should I abide by these, whey should anyone if morality is subjetcive. So people assume that epistemic truths are binding in a debate. So you are prescribing that honesty should be objectively binding in out discussion. However, this epistemic virtue is tied to our moral virtue of honesty so you cannot moral realism (objectivisty).

You cannot reject moral realism if you wish to debate your position and assume it is wrong for me to misrepresent your argument. Since we agree there are epistemic duties and values used in discussions we therefore agree moral duties and facts are objective.

I don't see how setting up parameters for a discussion in order to have a clear and mutually understood communication is a moral issue.

I think all moral wrongs come down to a harm done to humans in one way or another because morality happens between people.

I notice that you avoided actually answering my question.

Where is the harm in premarital sex?

So who is right. Surely on such an important issue we must know. We cannot possibly be ending someones life based on someones subjetcive opinion. We have objective measures now for things like this. Doctors are able to state the facts, that the person is suffering, cannot ever be made better ect.

If someone still wants to die then that is their subjetcive view I guess and has nothing to do with whether it is objectively right or wrong. In fact people would say that someone who wants to dies for no objective reason is not really in their right mind and should be stopped.

Who is right? Well, you tell me. If there was objective morality, you tell me who is right. Use the same kind of formal and structured language that we can use for maths and logic. I mean, it's objective, isn't it? So you should have trouble doing so.

I have already gone through this. Obviously we will never have the type of evdience that science uses (physical). But as I said we can reason truths. IE we see an old lady being robbed we can say that the act of stealing her money is wrong and anyone who says its OK is just mistaken. We know this is true because the alternative which is to say that stealing old ladies handbags is morlaly OK is irrational and causes a lot of harm for human " LIfe".

The evidence is there. The old lady will be traumatised as it personally affects humans. Stealing destroys societies, hurts people, creates disorder. Science show us the effects it has on humans. We don't allow subjecti8ve opinions when it comes to these core moral truths.

And what if she stole the money in the first place and the person stealing it is stealing it back? Or what if she's just going to waste the whole lot of the money in the pokies and the person stealing it is going to use it to buy life-saving medicine for a family member?

They are just wrong, no subjective views are allowed to change this and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong. Its reflected in laws, Human Rights, Decalrations, Treaties, ethical codes ect. People protest the behaviour, condemn it, make it a moral truth and tell everyone that stealing is objective wrong.

And what about other issue such as premarital sex? Tell me, what is the OBJECTIVE MORALITY in that issue? Surely there is one, right? What is it? You've avoided the issue entirely so far.

Before you say but people acting that way doesnt make it objective. Remember they are not just acting that way. They are making everyone act that way. There is no choice or room for subjetcive views. That is differnt to acting that way. They are actually saying its the only way to act when it comes to morality.

I'll agree that theft does objectively cause harm, but if we go with what you've said before, morality must look at the overall cost of things. And if the benefit from such a theft ever outweighs the harm (such as my earlier example of stealing money that the little old lady was going to waste in the pokies in order to buy life saving medicine), surely the harm done is insignificant to the benefit achieved, yes? Would the theft not become the morally correct course of action?

Of course, it also hasn't escaped my notice that you have gone to an example that most people will agree on to prove your point. There are plenty of examples of moral issues where there is widespread disagreement, such as the issue of premarital sex, which you seem to refuse to comment on.

 

[Kylie]

Depends how you express it.

You can say: a world where we kill our neighbor in their sleep would be miserable to live in and so, because we hate misery, we should call that behavior "wrong".

Seems objectively true and demonstrable. And its also a moral statement, just not expressed the typical shorthand way.

I agree. But that such acts would make it miserable is purely a result of the kind of society in which we live. If we lived in a different kind of society, say one where Humans were solitary and struggled to find resources, killing neighbours could well have the exact opposite effect by giving us more territory and more resources.

And I've always argued that the moral views that we have are a result of the kind of society that we live in. So your claim here is entirely compatible with my position.

 

[Kylie]

OK sorry. Then my other point still stands that even those who disagreed still though moral realism was a rational position. So even though they were anti moral realists they still agreed that moral realims was a reasonable position to take. That says something for the position being a logically and rational position to take.

Irrelevant. I can still say that I can see why people would think Star Wars is better than Star Trek, even if I do not agree with that position. That's what happens when things are subjective.

Thats silly. We would hope that by sticking to the facts of the matter we can sort the feelings from facts. The fact is Miss Jones has been sacked. The facts around why she was sacked will also be there. Miss jones can react anyway she wants as subjetcive feelings are not right or wrong.

First of all, I never said she was sacked.

But let's say she was. Miss Jones could say that she only made a little mistake (perhaps she had a single decimal point in the wrong position), and that her boss sacking her was the morally wrong thing to do.

But her boss could argue that this one mistake cost the company several million dollars and it wasn't such a little mistake. Tell me, who would be morally correct there? I suspect your answer will be to avoid the question, but that's only because it's very subjective.

BUt even objecting to the way this scenario can be measured shows that we need an objective measure and not base it on how people feel or personally view the situation.

Well, I'm waiting for you to provide one! I've been waiting for ages and you just don't seem able to do it! What are you waiting for?

So they all agree that cliamte change is a problem based on some facts. They don;t just say " I feel the weather in me bones and claimate change is real". The fact that people disagree around the fringes as to what exactly is climate change doesnt mean there is no further facts to discover. We may not havethe tech to know and may find more evdience that further suppirts the facts.

Stop avoiding my point. A small minority of conspiracy theorists doesn't count as a valid disagreement.

Not really. Most experts agree that morality is a case of therehaving to be a right and wrong answer and that most people know and agree on the core moral truths. They just disagree what that represents. The same as climate change.

Again, you are avoiding the issue. the disagreement regarding climate change scientsits is miniscule compared to the disagreement among those who have studied morality.

And as I've explaine dcountless times, the fact that people agree on a set of core morality is easily explained by the fact we live in societies that work better when those viewpoints are in place.

I didnt ignore this if you remember I refuted it by
1) People from different cultures and social setting agree with the same core morals throughout the world.

Not true. Some societies view the death penalty as appropriate, others do not. There are societeies where people are executed if they do not follow the official religion, and others where people are free to believe as they please. There are some cultures where being gay is a crime punishable by death, and others where it is not. There are some cultures where having multiple wives is permissable, and others where it is not.

2) They also say that those who disagree are objectively wrong.

So what? There are people who cry out, "Star Wars is better than Star Trek and anyone who disagrees with me is objectively wrong!" Yet we both agree that such people are speaking a subjective opinion.

3) Evidence shows that young children well before being able to be encultured know these core moral truths as well.

I've already addressed that.

You seem to think because we cannot determine the exact amount or type of harm rape does that we cannot tell any facts about rape. We can know that rape causes certain harms and in light of that people may respond differently.

I never said that.

But you have said several times that morality is based on the harm done, and morality is objective. If we can not objectively measure the harm that was done, I don't see how you can justifiably claim that morality is objective.

But responding differently to a violation doesnt mean there is no violation. It doesnt mean there is no measures we can find to determine that its a violation and does harm to humans.

Agreed. But since different people respond to it differently, there can be no objective facts about the morality of it, since (as you say) morality is about the harm done, and since the harm done can be different for different people, there can't be any objective facts about how much harm was done.

The facts is no matter how you look at it rape causes some harms which are not good for humans. Put it thisd way, if someone said they subjectively felt that being rape is ok would not get a rapist off. All these objections are logical fallacies.

Once again, I am not disputing the fact that rape objectively does harm. I am dispuiting the fact that the moral conclusion we draw from one instance is going to be different to the moral conclusion we draw from another one.

 

[Kylie]

So your saying theres no objective criteria for euthenasia. People can kill others if they subjectively feel that they want to end their life. Thats crazy.

Tell me, why do you think a lack of objective standards means people will just be doing it willy nilly?

Yes but thats not how it works. Person B can't just say they want to end their lives just like that and then kill themselves. Thats not what euthenasia but rather suicide. Euthenasia is a regulated practcie and illegal in many countries. But where legal it usually involves a controlled situation and usually by a doctor. Otherwise you could not say its euthenasia but some back street cowboy operation.

Okay, let's get to your position, since you believe in objective morality and therefore have a way of determining it.

Is euthanasia morally good or morally bad? Show me the objective process that lead to your conclusion.

I have not said that there are specific points to measure morality. I have said there are degrees like severity. That doesnt have points but rather greater or lessor of something. Its the fact that there is a greater or lesser of something and taht we are moving away from one point towards another that shows that there are objective measures.

And by what objective measure do we determine if one something is a greater or lesser degree of severity?

No doubt you'll use extreme examples, like claiming that murder is worse than slapping someone. But that's easy. I've criticised you many times now for resorting to such extremes when your position SHOULD work for any two somethings.

So tell me, which is more sever? Stealing a chocolate bar or stealing a can of softdrink?

I have shown this with the different degrees of killing. How do we measure manslaughter from 1st degree murder. We do this by measuring it against what 1st degree murder is and how manslaughter is different, accidental and without intent. The same with most other morals.

And how do you objectively show intent?

I just gave you 3 examples. Many scientific objectives are disagreed on. Gravity for one, how the universe began, whether there is a multiverse, diets. Even Einsteins law of relativity was dispute and seen differently by his contemproaries. Most scientific ideas are disagreed until they are proven. But the disagreements are based on assumptions made about reality and not subjective views.

Please show me how some aspect of gravity that is presented as objectively true by some scientists is disagreed on by another group of scientists.

And then do the same for the origin of the universe, the existence of a multiverse, diets and relativity.

And if you say that these were disagreed on in the past but are not disagreed on now, then I'll point out that the disagreement ended because formal objective evidence was provided, written in a clear and unambiguous way (that formal kind of language that we currently use for things like maths and logic). As such, you'll need to do the same thing for morality.

 

[Kylie]

I'm aware a doctor will want to know if you're experiencing any pain -- this is part of my argument. They probably don't want to be manipulated for a prescription, and they aren't concerned with opinion on what pain is. But they are not going to ignore the pain as non-real or irrelevant because it is "in the mind."

Subjective doesn't mean non-real. Likewise, there exists a set of experiences each person may go through involuntarily that each has no choice but to consider wrongs when experienced. That they are involuntary experiences and not subject to opinion is relevant. That the mind has anything to do with this is useful only to confound the matter, especially given Kant's motives in response to Hume's moral sense theory and attack against rationalism.

We know enough to know that pain can and should be treated as real. That we're still stuck in Kantian thought when it comes to morality is a matter of convenience, for some.

This seems to contradict your earlier statement, "A doctor doesn't bother herself with the subjectivity of a pain response in a patient..."

 

[TheWhat?]

This seems to contradict your earlier statement, "A doctor doesn't bother herself with the subjectivity of a pain response in a patient..."

If she did, you could be in the worst pain of your life, your doctor could know that and still tell you "we've determined that the experience of your pain exists only in the mind, you're fine." This is not what doctors do. I'm saying doctors don't concern themselves with the subjectivity of pain experiences like philosophers evidently concern themselves with the subjectivity of the experience of being wronged, since Kant.

 

[Kylie]

If she did, you could be in the worst pain of your life, your doctor could know that and still tell you "we've determined that the experience of your pain exists only in the mind, you're fine." This is not what doctors do. I'm saying doctors don't concern themselves with the subjectivity of pain experiences like philosophers evidently concern themselves with the subjectivity of the experience of being wronged, since Kant.

But a person's experience of the pain is subjective. What is agony to one person may be tolerable to another. And a doctor is going to look after the person who is experiencing the worst pain first in many cases, yes?

 

[TheWhat?]

But a person's experience of the pain is subjective. What is agony to one person may be tolerable to another. And a doctor is going to look after the person who is experiencing the worst pain first in many cases, yes?

Medicine is a hard science. It's concerned with objective scientific facts. Why should it concern itself with treating anything that has no objective existence in reality? Do you see the irony?

 

[stevevw]

Show us this objective pain meassurement.

Sure. The articles mention that a patients subjective experi4ence of pain is unreliable so its important to have some way to objectively deetrmine pain so that better and more 9individualized treatments can be given.

This is an example of how some think that certain experiences can only be subjective and theresno way to determine objectivity. Here we see as technology increases we can determine objective status. So saying there is no objective is premature. We should not discount objectivity even if we thinkthere is no way to tell.

Researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder have found a unique neurologic signature in patients' brain scans that allows them to predict how much pain a person is feeling with 90 to 100 percent accuracy.
Scientists Objectively Measure Pain for the First Time Using Brain Scans

 

[stevevw]

So is how Brussels sprouts taste. It is immediate to our experience, just as is our experience of moral outrage when something happens in our presence. This does not make it objective.

But taste for food is different to morality for a number of reasons. People will experience the taste of something (sprouts) subjectively. So people won't intuit the taste of Brussel Sprouts the same.

Intuition is based on our experience of something and for morality that means how it works with other people as well. As there are moral truths we will see the same type of moral behaviour in others as well. You can't do that with food as its subjective and there will be different behaviours that would make our intuition ambigious.

The most pertinent point is that unlike taste for food morality is about right and wrong behaviour. WE object and condemn the wrong behaviour we intuit. But you cannot do that with taste preferences for food. You cannot be morally wrong for disliking Brussel sprouts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But taste for food is different to morality for a number of reasons.

Yes, we have already discussed your apparent inability to glean the importance of analogies without assuming they are identities.

So people won't intuit the taste of Brussel Sprouts the same.

Intuition is based on our experience of something and for morality that means how it works with other people as well. As there are moral truths we will see the same type of moral behaviour in others as well. You can't do that with food as its subjective and there will be different behaviours that would make our intuition ambigious.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here. I see some people avoid Brussels sprouts. I see some people load their plate with Brussels sprouts. I see some people getting abortions. I see some people avoiding abortions. I know what my intuition tells me in both cases. I believe other people have different intuitions than mine in both cases.