Is there Objective Morality?

Moral Orel said:

When it's arbitrary, sure, it's non-objective. When it's prudent, it is objective.

Click to expand...

And we will probably have to spell out what exactly arbitrary means in this context, but an example would be that racist moral systems are not objective because they are based on variables that are arbitrary with respect to morality, namely race.

Moral Orel said:

Eh... I'm not sure if we disagree on this or not. Let's explore it. I like chocolate ice cream. Can we say that the fact "Orel likes chocolate ice cream" is objective? We would agree that it's my subjective opinion that chocolate ice cream is tasty, yes yes? But "Orel likes chocolate ice cream" is true, but it only relates to me.

Click to expand...

I gave my definition of objective in post #3. The proposition, “Orel likes chocolate ice cream,” is objective insofar as it is true and accessible to all, which it is. It is an objective fact that Orel likes chocolate ice cream, and anyone can verify this by consulting you.

Moral Orel said:

zippy2006 said:

Now I agree that those who believe that morality is relative to certain situational variables can at the same time be moral objectivists (or hold to an objective morality). We just wouldn't tend call them moral relativists. As noted earlier, I'm not quite sure who qualifies as a "moral absolutist." From my reading it would seem that a moral absolutist holds to only one single moral principle so that there are no conflicting principles even in theory. If that is right then moral absolutists are few and far between, and it's not clear to me what your relative concept of morality is concretely opposed to?

Click to expand...

Relative and absolute are on a spectrum. The more general the rules, the more absolute it is. The more you have to specify the circumstances, the more relative it is. For instance, "Torture is wrong" is more absolute than "Torture for fun is wrong".

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but circumstances are always based on further principles. “Torture is wrong” is based on a single principle. “Torture for fun is wrong” is based on at least a few principles: Torture is mildly wrong; things which are mildly wrong can only be done with proper justification; fun is the sort of thing that is not sufficient to justify the mild wrong of torture. So again, it seems to me that the distinction has to do with the number of principles.

Moral Orel said:

zippy2006 said:

In this case "relative" is not subdividing humans into different moral sects.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. Trained is one sect, untrained is another sect.

Click to expand...

But that specifies a difference of competence, not a difference of morality.

Moral Orel said:

zippy2006 said:

This is because the moral rule, "Do not perform CPR if you are untrained," applies to all humans regardless of culture, historical epoch, etc. It is universally applicable and accessible. So it would not be moral relativism in the colloquial sense of the "ism", and yes, you are right that it would be objective.

Click to expand...

I could say, "Do not cut off people's heads if you are not an ancient Aztec" and that would apply to all persons, yes yes?

Click to expand...

That would be the application of a rule based on the morally arbitrary property of culture.

Moral Orel said:

Side note, since I acknowledged my mistake, I get to ignore your references to "isms" and "ists". We're talking about what it means for things to be relative and objective and subjective.

Click to expand...

I think the same issue arises apart from the isms, though in a subtler way. When we are talking about morality “relative” does not conventionally mean subjective or “circumstantial.” That’s what many of my arguments are getting at. It is the moral context that gives the word “relative” the meaning in question.

Moral Orel said:

Well, we're dividing folks based on some criteria. One group should act one way, and the other group should act in the opposite way. You agree that criteria (trained vs untrained) is prudent, but you seem to only want to acknowledge the relative nature of the division if it isn't prudent.

Click to expand...

I admit that I haven’t given a great technical distinction. I would prefer arbitrary/relevant to arbitrary/prudent. The point is to distinguish moralities that are universally accessible from moralities that are not, and on my definition this is the distinction between objective and non-objective moralities.

I don’t see how the notion of “relative” in the sense of, “my morality is relative to something,” is meaningful. In that case it would seem that even absolute moralities are relative, for something like, “torture is wrong,” is really going to mean, “causing harm is wrong when…” That is, defining “torture” will require “relative” distinctions. More generally, absolute moralities are involved in the claim that some acts are moral and some are not, which could be construed as “act relativism,” because the morality is “relative” to which act is being performed. In that sense the only truly “absolute” morality would be moral skepticism.

Anyone who holds to any normative theory must make distinctions and decisions about how it is applied. Therefore “relative” in the sense you want to use it is ubiquitous. It means everything and therefore it means nothing, which is apparently why it is never used that way in a moral context.

“Situational Ethics” is an interesting counterexample, but I have never been able to make much sense of that school. At bottom it seems to just be a multiplying of moral principles to the degree that a moral decision becomes more a function of intuition than calculation.

Moral Orel said:

Thanks to @Kylie for pointing out that even untrained people should begin CPR, which subsequently makes my analogy fail. But I'm sure Zippy saw your post too and we're both sticking to the analogy solely for simplicity's sake. If Zippy wanted to get all pedantic about it we could switch to something else like entering confined spaces to retrieve an unconscious person or something to that effect, but I don't think he's that pedantic.

Click to expand...

I did see it and I am happy to prescind from that question. I have never heard it phrased that way, though. Untrained folks performing CPR can cause a great deal of damage, including broken ribs and punctured lungs. I guess the argument is that such damage is better than death.

If it were me I would ask the fellow if he wants to be resuscitated. It’s bad enough to be woken up when you’re sound asleep. It’s much worse to be woken up with two broken ribs, a punctured lung, and a face full of a stranger’s saliva. Besides, I saw it in a movie once.

essentialsaltes said:

Why on earth would I attempt that? Matters of aesthetics, like morality, are subjective.

Click to expand...

Then I suppose you will have to try to work out what you mean when you say, “That Brussels sprout you just ate? It tasted nasty. Maybe not to you, but that doesn’t change my judgment.” If I heard someone say that I would assume they don’t know how to use the English language.

Kylie said:

Another example to hopefully demonstrate this.

Let's say I ask people to sort marbles based on colour. I have a box for all the green marbles. Now, it's an objective fact that red is not green. There will be no disagreement there. But when it comes to colours that are closer, there will be disagreement. I might put a marble into the green box, and someone else might say, "No, that's not green, it's yellow." I'd say, "Sure, it's a bit yellowish, but it's a yellowish green and I still think it's close enough to green to go in the green box."

So we can objectively state what ISN'T a green marble (such as the red marbles), but we can't objectively agree on what IS a green marble.

Click to expand...

Then the answer is that some of the marbles are objectively categorized and some of them are not, no?

Kylie said:

Okay, here's the situation.

John's wife is very sick, and without an expensive medication she will die. But they are very poor and John can't afford to get the medication his wife needs. One day, John is walking down the street and he finds a wad of money on the ground. This will be enough to buy the medication his wife needs. He picks it up and puts it in his pocket, grateful that his wife isn't going to die. But just as he is walking away, a little old lady hurries down the street, looking for something. She says that she lost her money and she needs it to pay rent. If she can't pay rent, she will be evicted and since it is the middle of winter, she will be homeless in the bitter cold. She would surely die in the night.

Tell me, objectively speaking, what the morally correct thing for John to do is in this situation. Since we can be precisely exact when talking about things like trajectories, I expect you to be equally exact when talking about the morality of this situation.

Click to expand...

If the money in John’s pocket belongs to the needy woman then he should give it to her. If it does not belong to the woman he can keep it. This is not difficult. The more difficult case is whether theft is permissible in cases of dire need. Coincidentally, an article that relates to this was written yesterday. Nevertheless, if both parties are in dire need then theft would not be permissible.

The trajectory of a projectile can only be accurately calculated when one possesses all of the relevant variables. If I know the velocity and the angle but not the windspeed or height then my calculation will include a margin of error, but as long as that margin of error is included in the answer the answer will still be objective. If too many variables are missing you could just say, “I don’t know. I don’t have enough information to make a determination.” It wouldn’t follow that trajectories are not objective, nor would it follow that disagreements within the margin of error are a sign of non-objectivity.