Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

You're drifting off into discussing morality from an absolute position now, and not an objective one.

How so. I am not talking about a rigid and fixed moral law that cannit change with circumstances (context) which is what absolute morality is. I am talking about an objective moral measurement (outside the human) that can be used to determine what is morally right or wrong.

So as mentioned if the issue matters morally then that implies that there are some better ways to act morally then other ways. If thats the case then that implies an objective measure outside humans is needed to deetrmine which ways are the better ways to act morally. Its logic and rational. Its not fixing a moral to be the same in every situation. Its saying that in each situation we should be able to determine the best way to act morally against a moral standard.

And there's no measure except the one we personally decide to apply. So in fact, you might personally decide that something can be the best or worst example of an act and use that as the standard to determine the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of that act. But...you've made that decision about the 'gold standard' yourself. No-one can make it for you. So it cannot be objective.

then once again you have misunderstood objective morality. As mentioned in the example of seeking the truth of a matter. The objective moral is not deetrmined by anyones personal opinion. Its determined by the fact that humans treat that moral that way in those situations and there is no other way they can act in those situations if they want that situation to be coherent and have meaning.

Sure they can decide that "Truth and Honesty"are not necessary and subject to personal opinion but the person cannot engage in that situation with others. But the point is here is a situation where moral values are necessary and independent of human decisions or opinions.

 

[stevevw]

It's my position that something cannot be wrong (immoral) if no harm is done or intended. And if someone then says 'Hey, I enjoyed that', then you cannot tell them it was wrong. It cannot possibly be immoral if she got something positive from the experience and no harm was done or intended.

I can imagine you now coming up with some example and saying something to the effect of: 'Surely you must agree that this is immoral'. But again, unless you can show that harm is done or is intended, then no. It ain't.

Who determines the harm and who is the harm being done to. When you say "she" who are you meaning the person commiting the moral action or the one being the recipient of a moral action.

But either way it doesnt make sense to equate morality to pleasure and pain or harm and no harm. For one harm or pain is subjective. What may be harmful or painful for one person may not be the same for another.

Examples would be someone tells a lie to swindle someone out of some money that brings pleasure and enjoyment to the person who swindled the money. They don't know how the victim was affected as they never see them again.

If someone subjectively thinks pain brings enjoyment/pleasure then we are in all sorts of trouble. A underage person can believe they are in love with an older person which brings them enjoyment but it is immoral for the older person to take advantage.

And I've read a lot of Bloom's work (and listened to him on Youtube). I think the claim that 'Empathy is useless for making us good' isn't reflecting his views in the sense that it's being claimed. If we had no empathy, then 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' wouldn't work. You need to put yourself in someone else's position for that command to work.

He is not saying empathy doesnt work that way where people can empathize with others. He is saying that it can also bring other feelings so its not a good basis for determining morality.

It makes sense as people may have ambivalent feelings as to whether people deserve empathy because of a personal experience which clouds their judgements. Like all thieves should be locked up because they experiences a harrowing situation where someone robbed them. As opposed to someone who has never experienced that.

 

[Bradskii]

So as mentioned if the issue matters morally then that implies that there are some better ways to act morally then other ways. If thats the case then that implies an objective measure outside humans is needed to deetrmine which ways are the better ways to act morally. Its logic and rational. Its not fixing a moral to be the same in every situation. Its saying that in each situation we should be able to determine the best way to act morally against a moral standard.

If morality was absolute, then you'd have an argument. We'd be moving towards that absolute truth. We'd use that as our 'gold standard'. But if a moral problem has an absolute answer then it's not relative to the circumstances and what we individually think of the matter is irrelevant. But we have decided that it's context dependent.

Let's go back to the trolley problem. If problems like this are context dependent - that is, we cannot say sacrificing one person is wrong until we know the circumstances, then the circumstances will guide our decision as regards the morality of the act (and we've decided that moral problems are context defined). That means that the number of people that we might save has an objective value. Which is nonsensical.

Imagine deciding if cageing chickens is morally acceptable. If there was an absolute morality then there'd be a specific size of cage that is the morally acceptable one. Which is likewise nonsensical. Unless you know the dimensions?

Notwithstanding that if there was an objective value to all moral problems, then how would we know what it is? Revelation? Whose revelation? Yours? Or do you need to pick someone or some group of people that you think has the answer? Can we personally decide, that is - give our subjective opinion, as to who has the objective answer?

 

[Bradskii]

Who determines the harm and who is the harm being done to. When you say "she" who are you meaning the person commiting the moral action or the one being the recipient of a moral action.

My point was that if no harm is done or intended then the act cannot be wrong. And if someone is the 'recipient' of that act then it's going to be their call as to whether they have been harmed by it. It's not your decision.

If you want to argue against that then you need to give me an example of an act which you say is wrong when no harm has been done.

 

[stevevw]

accidently posted without reply. Will post reply soon.

 

[partinobodycular]

That doesnt make sense. You have said it is relative morality but it really isnt relative morality. I agree with the second assessment that it isnt relative morality because relative morality allows for anyones relative situation to dictate morality. Whereas my example doesnt allow for anyones relative position. It only allows for one option for morality if the situation is to function.

Good, I hit a nerve.

As I stated, your position isn't what's generally referred to as "moral relativism". That's not what I was implying. In your case morality isn't relative to what any particular culture or person thinks, rather in your version morality is relative to some rather esoteric idea that I haven't completely parsed out yet, but it seems to have something to do with creating a functioning society, hence things such as lying, rape, and murder are immoral because they tend not to be conducive to stable social structures.

So you begin with a goal...a well functioning society, and then your morals are determined by what does and doesn't tend toward that goal. That means that your morals aren't actually objective, they're relative to the goal. Hence lying is immoral, unless there's a greater good that can come from it, then it's not.

Yes now we have 3 people engaged in finding the truth of this matter. Imagine if we dismissed as subjective or relative the moral values of "TRuth and Honesty". How far would we get in finding the truth.

Okay, let's examine what seems to be your favorite theme, "Truth and Honesty". Your claim is that without the intuitive moral guidelines of "truth and honesty" it would be impossible for us to have a productive discussion. To which I say hogwash. The discussion would look exactly the same as it does now, morals or not. We're not being honest and truthful because we're morally compelled to, we're being honest and truthful because we think we're right. You think that your arguments are valid and compelling, therefore you're going to present them as convincingly as possible. It's not like you're sitting there going gee I wish I could lie, because that would be so helpful, but those gosh darn morals just won't let me.

Tell me, has that thought even crossed your mind, that it would be helpful if you could lie, because it certainly hasn't crossed mine. So morality has absolutely nothing to do with us having a productive discussion. We're being truthful and honest because why in the heck would we do anything else?

While we're at it maybe we should discuss why you're not running around killing people. I'm sure that you must really want to, and it's only your exceptional moral values that are stopping you...right?

 

[o_mlly]

You actually forgot you said it?

o_mlly said: ↑

Sexual assault on an unconscious woman is not rape.
​

That's what I wrote but that is not what you stawmanned me with. Did you forget what you wrote?

Same with the unconscious woman (whom, incredibly, you think cannot be raped).

Do I need to spell out the difference? Apparently so. Every sexual assault, eg., groping, on an unconscious woman is not rape.

 

[o_mlly]

If she doesn't want to be killed then that seems the more reasonable position and one with which we'd all concur. If she naively thinks she's literally going for a shower then it's not possible to suggest how she feels about being killed.

You really believe that? You presume a woman who thinks she's just going to shower really doesn't care if she's about to be murdered instead? C'mon, this is not that difficult.

If you mean sexually assaulted against her will (as opposed to someone having sex with her when she was unconscious but was an act with which she would have no problem or there was some bondage involved - some people apparently enjoy that) then...sure. But you need to understand that you are effectively asking 'Is everything ok or not?' By asking her you are confirming that you need to know what her feelings are about the situation.

Otherwise what are you going to do? If she says she's fine, do you tell her she's not? Do you insist that someone has done something wrong even if she insists that's not the case? Do you demand that the police take action even if she tells them she's perfectly OK? What do you actually tell the police? She was tied up and someone had sex with her and that's wrong as far as you are concerned? How odd...

"By asking her you are confirming that you need to know what her feelings are about the situation."
Incredible, just incredible.

Officer: "Ma'am, do you feel like you were raped?"
Ma'am: "You idiot, of course, I was raped."
Officer: "But Ma'am, how do you feel about being raped?"
Ma'am: "Call for backup! You're an imbecile."

 

[o_mlly]

And that wouldn't take into account things like hallucinations. We must be able to measure the light in an objective way. You have constantly failed to show that morality can be measured in any objective way.

Hallucinations? Yes, our senses are not infallible. How does that bear on whether morality is objective or not? It's still a yes or no question.

For instance, the act of murder is not murder if the victim is not dead. The perp cannot argue in his defense, "... but just how dead is he?" -- which seems to be your argument.

 

[stevevw]

Good, I hit a nerve.

As I stated, your position isn't what's generally referred to as "moral relativism". That's not what I was implying. In your case morality isn't relative to what any particular culture or person thinks, rather in your version morality is relative to some rather esoteric idea that I haven't completely parsed out yet, but it seems to have something to do with creating a functioning society, hence things such as lying, and rape, and murder are immoral because they tend not to be conducive to stable social structures.

So you begin with a goal...a well functioning society, and then your morals are determined by what does and doesn't tend toward that goal. That means that your morals aren't actually objective, they're relative to the goal. Hence lying is immoral, unless there's a greater good that can come from it, then it's not.

There is no goal its just an observation of the way people act morally. What your talking about is similar to Sam Harris's moral landscape which has also been refuted. His idea is still not moral realism as it makes a subjective or relative basis as the measure of morality still (what helps people function, makes them well, efficient, stable, it doesnt matter.

People can then ask why is stability or whatever idea used is really morally good. There is no basis for why they are morally good or bad apart from a humans view.

Rather moral realism looks outside the person and observes how people really act/react in moral situations. Sees how the moral affects that situation rightly or wrongly. In that way the moral values we find are independent from humans and thus objective.

Okay, let's examine what seems to be your favorite theme, "Truth and Honesty". Your claim is that without the intuitive moral guidelines of "truth and honesty" it would be impossible for us to have a productive discussion. To which I say hogwash. The discussion would look exactly the same as it does now, morals or not. We're not being honest and truthful because we're morally compelled to, we're being honest and truthful because we think we're right. You think that your arguments are valid and compelling, therefore you're going to present them as convincingly as possible.

I think it matters more to us than wanting to be right about an arguement. You have to try and make a good case to explain to someone else but the point is "what is it that matters, why does it matter".

All I am doing is acknowledging that for our debate or any discussion to go ahead to find the truth or fact humans behave in a particular moral way because something matters morally. That with some logic and rational thought we are justified to believe that the way humans behave in that situation is a true representation of the moral truth that applies. Its not my opinion, its just an observation of the reality of human behaviour.

It's not like you're sitting there going gee I wish I could lie, because that would be so helpful, but those gosh darn morals just won't let me.
Tell me, has that thought even crossed your mind, that it would be helpful if you could lie, because it certainly hasn't crossed mine. So morality has absolutely nothing to do with us having a productive discussion.

So your saying no one would think of lying is a debate or discussion. I can think of many ways why people would lie (personal gain, getting out of a fix ect). The point is there is a potential for people to lie or distort the truth under relative/subjective morality. But even lies can only be possible discovered if we use " Honesty and Truth"objectively as the basis for measuring what is true or not.

Its not about making things productive. As I said someone could say why make being productive a measure of good.

We're being truthful and honest because why in the heck would we do anything else?

Yes I agree but it depends on what you mean by "why would we do anything else?". That implies there is an objective "why" that matters.

I'm saying that we have no choice but to make these morals independent because we are justified to believe they are a true reflection of real lived morality. There is no individual choice of making these morals objective. They are objective in themselves. They are just how things are that we observe.

So therefore without even thinking about we both have made "Honesty" and "Truth" independent values because thats how we behave naturally, intuitively. We can then check things with logic and rational thinking to see that our intuition has some truth. It uisually does as our intuition is an assessment we make from our lived morality and thats pretty spot on most of the time.

While we're at it maybe we should discuss why you're not running around killing people. I'm sure that you must really want to, and it's only your exceptional moral values that are stopping you...right?

Thats how I usually think about subjective/relative morality. If its really the same as "likes and Dislikes" then there really isnt morality outside peoples heads. So as if we use taste for food people like all sorts of different foods. So if some likes killing like they like pineapple on pizzas then thats OK. Its got nothing to do with morality.

The objective morality I am talking about is that all humans intuitive know that killing is wrong. There is a right and wrong way to act that matters to humans. Because it matters it suggests there is an objective point that we can use to measure what actually matters morally or not. Rather than just leaving it up to peoples preferences.

 

[stevevw]

My point was that if no harm is done or intended then the act cannot be wrong. And if someone is the 'recipient' of that act then it's going to be their call as to whether they have been harmed by it. It's not your decision.

And I think thats not a good way to measure morality as it is not independent from human preferences or views which can be influenced by many different things when it comes to how people precieve pleasure, pain, joy and comfort ect. They are subjective feelings and they don't relate to what's morally good or bad in any independent way outside the human.

If you want to argue against that then you need to give me an example of an act which you say is wrong when no harm has been done.

I'm not saying that people cannot come to some determination that its good not to harm people or harm is a good way to tell if something is morally good or bad. I'm asking how is this grounded to know that its really morally good beyond the person.

Because it doesn't matter what answer I give that's not the point. If you look at the the word harm it could mean different things to different people. What people think is not harm later turns out to be harm. What people think is harm is often associated with good things because growing up brings pain and suffering sometimes.

If theres no grounding beyond humans then its not a truth about morality. Its just a psychological reflection of someones state at that time.

But when we observe how people act/react morally we find they act a certain way as though theres a law that guides them. Some may try to get around this truth or deny the moral truth but its there as a measure because humans make it so intuitively.

Until a defeater comes along which can show we are unjustified to believe the lived morality we experience is unreal then we can be pretty sure its a safe bet if we want to measure morality which is something we seem to want to do as well.

 

[partinobodycular]

Thats not what I said and is misrepresenting what my arguement is. Running a marathon doesnt matter to humans morally.

Of course it doesn't, which simply demonstrates that the simple fact that something is necessary to achieve a specific outcome doesn't make it moral. Heck, communicating in clear sentences is vital to having a productive discussion too, but you're not arguing that being inarticulate is therefore immoral.

But being able to engage with others in seeking the truth is a vital moral matter of importance for humans to function together. We seek the truth of matters with others as part of being human so we have to uphold "Honesty and Truth"as moral values.

Somehow you fail to see how the above argument makes morality relative. You consider honesty to be moral, because it's necessary for seeking the truth, which is necessary for humans to function together. So it's only in relation to that end goal that honesty is moral.

Rape is only immoral because it inhibits humans from functioning together. Murder is only immoral because it inhibits humans from functioning together. This means that morality isn't objective. Things aren't immoral in and of themselves, they're immoral specifically because they inhibit humans from functioning together.

Funny, that's exactly what an evolutionist would argue, that morals are simply those qualities that evolution would select for because they allow humans to function together. Hence there's no need for God, at least as far as the existence of morality is concerned. Morality is simply a product of evolution and nothing more.

 

[partinobodycular]

There is a right and wrong way to act that matters to humans. Because it matters it suggests there is an objective point that we can use to measure what actually matters morally or not. Rather than just leaving it up to peoples preferences.

Yes, but there's no reason to believe that this shared human intuition about good and bad behavior is due to anything more than evolution. And it's objective only insofar as it's favorable to humans functioning together. Actions aren't intrinsically good or bad, they're only good or bad when measured against that specific metric.

As I've previously argued, the only truly objective measure of morality is "survival of the fittest". Those traits which help humans survive are good, and those that don't are bad, and ultimately that's the only metric that's objective.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, but there's no reason to believe that this shared human intuition about good and bad behavior is due to anything more than evolution.

Evolution doesnt do anything nor ground morality. It doesn't negate that there is an objective moral truth to be found. Evolution just explains how we know morality not why something is good or bad morally. That needs to be independent of evolution.

And it's objective only insofar as it's favorable to humans functioning together. Actions aren't intrinsically good or bad, they're only good or bad when measured against that specific metric.

So therefore because there is a specific metric to measure things that is what makes morals objective. The specific metric is outside human views and opinion.

As I've previously argued, the only truly objective measure of morality is "survival of the fittest". Those traits which help humans survive are good, and those that don't are bad, and ultimately that's the only metric that's objective.

But that is not a measure of morality. It is a measure of survivability and what helps people survive is a subjective determination. It’s more like "Likes and dislikes" and liking or not liking something has nothing to do with morality.

It would be like saying a person who likes peas is immoral. Or I like taking other peoples money because it gives me a better quality of life and that helps me survive. But for many this is selfish and considered immoral. So we have no independent measure under subjective morality.

But in reality we act in contradiction to morals being "Likes and Dislikes". We act like there are moral truths and it matters morally. Its like using the example of treating Math as being subjective. People claiming there is no Math (moral) truths will claim 2 + 2 = 5 or 6 or 12. They have to because there is no objective Math and the answer to the equation is what people think, feel, like or dislike the answer to be. That should allow for any and all answers to be possibilities.

But when they live out that Math equation (moral value) in real life situations they act like 2 + 2 = 4. So the moral truth is in the way people act in real life situations. Its self-evident. In matters seeking the truth people act like "Honesty" is a moral truth that matters beyond them. They treat it that way because they know it needs to be treated that way.

Let me make it more personal. Do you think that we can have this debate in seeking the truth about whether morality is subjective or objective without being "Honesty". Without treating "Honesty" as untouchable by human opinion.

Do you think someone with a subjective view that "Honesty" is an unnecessary moral value for a discussion seeking the truth can have a discussion seeking the truth? Does it make sense that someone can come into a discussion seeking the truth and start twisting everything people said, made logical fallacies and kept lying to win the arguement or for whatever reason they think that "Honesty" is subjective.

Does it matter that they do that. Not because it matters to helps with survivability or reduces harm but just because it just matters to us that we find the truth of a matter.

 

[partinobodycular]

Evolution doesnt do anything...

Well you have to give it some credit, after all, it's the reason you exist.

...nor ground morality.

In an indirect way it actually does, because whatever it is that you think does ground morality, evolution is responsible for its existence.

So therefore because there is a specific metric to measure things that is what makes morals objective. The specific metric is outside human views and opinion.

Oddly, according to your argument the metric by which we measure morality...is us. It ain't God. Morality is simply the set of traits that allow human society to function. I can buy that. But I would also chalk it up to evolution in action.

For some reason you seem to be confused. I'm not claiming that your argument makes morality subjective, rather it makes it relative. By your own reasoning evolution will inevitably decide what things are moral and what things aren't. Simply by deciding what survives. So cheers to evolution, the final arbiter of all things moral.

But that is not a measure of morality. It is a measure of survivability and what helps people survive is a subjective determination. It’s more like "Likes and dislikes" and liking or not liking something has nothing to do with morality.

Wow, that's a head scratcher.

We get to choose what helps humanity survive? Pardon my incredulity, but I'm fairly ceratin that it's evolution that gets to do that. Now, you can have an opinion on the matter, but I'm pretty sure that if you're wrong, you die, and that would seem to be a rather clear cut way of determining who's right. My money's on evolution.

It would be like saying a person who likes peas is immoral.

At this point it seems as if the whole concept has gone right over your head, so I'll just slowly back away. Nice talking to ya...

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not saying that people cannot come to some determination that its good not to harm people or harm is a good way to tell if something is morally good or bad. I'm asking how is this grounded to know that its really morally good beyond the person.

Because it doesn't matter what answer I give that's not the point. If you look at the the word harm it could mean different things to different people. What people think is not harm later turns out to be harm. What people think is harm is often associated with good things because growing up brings pain and suffering sometimes.

That's a valid point. Something could be harmless now but might have harmfull effects later on. Or vice versa. I've no problem with that. But again, if no harm is done then it's not wrong and cannot be described as immoral. Feel free to give any example you can think of that will prove that to be incorrect.

 

[Bradskii]

Do I need to spell out the difference? Apparently so. Every sexual assault, eg., groping, on an unconscious woman is not rape.

You really should have taken the fifth...

 

[Bradskii]

You really believe that? You presume a woman who thinks she's just going to shower really doesn't care if she's about to be murdered instead? C'mon, this is not that difficult.


"By asking her you are confirming that you need to know what her feelings are about the situation."
Incredible, just incredible.

Officer: "Ma'am, do you feel like you were raped?"
Ma'am: "You idiot, of course, I was raped."
Officer: "But Ma'am, how do you feel about being raped?"
Ma'am: "Call for backup! You're an imbecile."

Officer: "Ma'am, do you feel like you were raped?"
Ma'am: "No! I was enjoying some bondage with my husband!"
Officer: 'Shucks, ma'am. It's just somebody called it in assuming that you were being assaulted'.

 

[Kylie]

Hallucinations? Yes, our senses are not infallible. How does that bear on whether morality is objective or not? It's still a yes or no question.

For instance, the act of murder is not murder if the victim is not dead. The perp cannot argue in his defense, "... but just how dead is he?" -- which seems to be your argument.

My point is that if the light really is on, then we should be able to measure it.

Likewise, if morality is objective, if you can say "Action A is more morally good than Action B," then you need some way of objectively measuring the morality of each in order to make that determination.

So I'm giving you the chance to demonstrate how this is done.

 

[stevevw]

Well you have to give it some credit, after all, it's the reason you exist.

Yes but I mean morality is a human endeavour. You cannot owe a moral duty to a rock and nor can a rock be duty bound. It is humans who understand and realte to morality and its their agency that makes it real.

In an indirect way it actually does, because whatever it is that you think does ground morality, evolution is responsible for its existence.

Well ultimately to ground morality you need a transcedent source and I don't think evolution created this. If anything its the other way around but thats another debate. The point is a moral truth cannot be created by anything material because its not material.

Overall evolution is just a natural process. The explanations that are attributed to it to account for morality are human proposed ideas and none are verified scientifically. But even if they were it still doesnt ground morality because it only explains "How" (a description) we come to know morality. It never explains "Why" something is wrong (a proscription).

Oddly, according to your argument the metric by which we measure morality...is us. It ain't God. Morality is simply the set of traits that allow human society to function. I can buy that. But I would also chalk it up to evolution in action.

Yes I am not trying to make an arguement for God being the source of morality as that doesnt help in trying to determine if there are objective moral. But I disagree that morality is the result of evolution as morality is non material and evolution is material. Morality is more like Math laws that are just there. We can act out and identify Math like we can act out and identify objective morality as independent laws or rules in the world.

For some reason you seem to be confused. I'm not claiming that your argument makes morality subjective, rather it makes it relative.

But as you said its not relative in the way people understan relative morality. Relative morality is still a human determination and the relativity that objective morality is subject to is more like context. The context of a situation can influence the right moral actions because they matter.

By your own reasoning evolution will inevitably decide what things are moral and what things aren't. Simply by deciding what survives. So cheers to evolution, the final arbiter of all things moral.

How does evolution do this when evolution has no mind, it has no reason and cannot owe a moral duty.

Wow, that's a head scratcher.
We get to choose what helps humanity survive? Pardon my incredulity, but I'm fairly ceratin that it's evolution that gets to do that. Now, you can have an opinion on the matter, but I'm pretty sure that if you're wrong, you die, and that would seem to be a rather clear cut way of determining who's right. My money's on evolution.

The reason you are confused is because you are trying to equate evolution (a nataural process) that has no purpose or reason or ability to think with morality that does. As I have said a few times now evolution doesnt explain why something is wrong. Saying that survival is what determines good doesnt explain why something is morally right or wrong. For example killing old people when there is not enough resources may be good for survival but its not good morally.

At this point it seems as if the whole concept has gone right over your head, so I'll just slowly back away. Nice talking to ya...

So your saying subjective morality is not the same as peoples "Likes and Dislikes". If you say evolution is responsible for morality and morality is subjective which is the same as peoples "Likes and Dislikes" then it follows that the way evolution determines survivability is by what people "Like and Dislike". ie I like money and money will help me survive.