Is there Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

Ok I will continue to read to learn more as I think its an interesting topic. But theres a bit more to moral realism then assuming objective morals. Logic and rationality is also used to determine moral facts about which is the best way to behave/act morally.

Uhm, no, not really.

 

[stevevw]

That sounds a bit absurd. What makes you think when a person seek truth, the morals of honesty and truth values are independent beyond human subjective views? What are you basing this on?

If you subjectively think "honesty and truth" are unnecessary for the debate we are having right now then you can't ask me

"What makes you think when a person seek truth, the morals of honesty and truth values are independent beyond human subjective views?"

because there is no "honesty and truth" (ruling/guiding) our debate/discussion. Asking me questions to find the truth are irrelevant if "Truth" is no longer a necessary moral value.

That would end any chances of us finding the truth. I could just give any made up answer to your objection and say "because there's some Aliens in another dimension who are the moral law givers which makes morals like laws". You would have no way of disputing that because I don't have to be "Honest and because "Truth" in our debate ïs no necessary. There's no way you can determine if I am telling the "Truth" anymore.

Thus the debate/discussion will quickly breakdown and there will be no debate with us trying to discover the truth of what we were arguing about which seemed to matter to us.

So I think this makes the moral values of "Honesty and Truth" necessary for us to have the debate we are having right now. We have to make "Honesty and Truth" moral values beyond out personal opinions of them otherwise no debate.

In that sense we have established that the morals of "Honesty and Truth" in our debate have a value beyond our personal views and if we want to have our debate which seems to matter to us,
Then we need to make "Honesty and Truth" independent of our or anyones subjective views. That logically leads to "Honesty and Truth" being objective (have value and status outside our heads).

I think moral realism is sort of a study/observation of how people actually act/react intuitively in moral situations. Things matter morally, we want to know the truth, we behave like moral values matter beyond us, in the world and universe as truths. So from that behaviour we can see how people make certain morals true like "Truth" a value beyond themselves. Its self-evident.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Lets keep things simple again. If there were objective morals do you think they would be a "physical" thing or something "Non material".

Obviously, it would be super helpful if it were physical. A strong pulse of magnetic field when something wicked happens. That would be objective, certainly, but that doesn't seem likely.

More likely it would have to be some quality of an act. To be real/objective, it would have to be unambiguous without the need for any human umpire to call balls and strikes, or to perceive this quality.

Think of the equivocal word 'sound'. One can think of it as compressions and rarefactions in air (or other medium). Or as 'a thing one hears'.

If a tree falls in a forest yadda yadda... certainly it makes a sound in the first sense, but not the second.

The first sense of sound is objective. And we know (I hope) that that tree does make a sound when it falls. As a matter of objective fact.

Sound as a physical phenomenon is a fact. An objective category. We can even apply qualities to sound like loudness that can be objectively measured, even if no human is there to hear it. We can apply other qualities to sound, like "Country & Western". This is not a natural category. Not an objective category. Indeed, 'musical genre' is a human invention. And clearly there will be grey areas, where people will have honest disagreements on genre.

We cannot measure genre of a sound if there is no human there to hear it. [At best, we could train an AI on human judgments, but I submit that we're not creating a machine that analyzes sound, but one that analyzes human judgments. And it would still be subject to grey areas and 'mistakes'.]

It seems to me that morality is a human invention like genre. And thus there is no fact of the matter. We can determine loudness objectively, but not genre. Nor can we determine morality objectively. Or at least, the many requests for how to do this objective determination have been largely left unanswered. And I can't think of anything either. So much so that I think it is a fool's errand.

It might seem attractive to move entirely to the world of ideas, since my example still rests on the physical phenomenon of sound. But really things become worse. This way lies o_mily and the syllogisms. But we've already seen there is disagreement about the axioms and premises. These are matters of choice, not objective facts. What is the sum of the interior angles of a triangle? Depends on your axioms. And there's no objective fact of the matter. So sure, you can work in some particular moral system resting on particular axioms, and you can grind out logical conclusions. But there is nothing objective about the choice of axioms that produced that system. And other equally internally consistent systems of morality will come to different conclusions.

 

[partinobodycular]

It logical stands that if there are objective morals then there needs to be a transcendent source.

And I've given you a transcendent source...it's called evolution.

So the source has to be humanlike yet beyond humans, be perfectly good, rational and necessary.

"Humanlike" is a rather imprecise term. "Good" is a subjective term. And evolution is the epitome of rational. Everything it does is completely and totally logical. It never sways from that path. That just leaves you with "necessary". Here again evolution is the epitome of necessary. Because either things evolve by a precisely defined methodology, or they evolve randomly. And if they evolve randomly then all that you have is chaos, and nothing intelligible could ever exist.

Thus evolution fulfills all of the criteria for a transcendent source, and yet you reject it. Why?

As per the above logic arguement above a transcendent being as the basis for moral law is a logically argued conclusion.

I'm sorry, but your moral argument was simply the mother lode of assumptions, such that I'm not even going to try to parse through it.

I think what your talking about is social behaviour which are different to morality. Social behaviour may involve things like etiquette or protocols.

I'm talking specifically about evolved social behavior, not simply social idiosyncrasies. I'm talking about things such as empathy, and yes...morality. These are evolved traits. We possess these traits specifically because they facilitated our survival.

"Using survival, functioning, stability, making human societies possible are not objective foundations for morality.

Survival is the only objective foundation for morality if one assumes that survival is the goal. If it is, then things become objectively good specifically because they tend toward that goal. But nothing is moral in and of itself. It's the goal that determines whether something is good or bad.

So if you assume that continued human survival is the goal, then things become objectively good or bad when measured against that goal. Thus social stability becomes good because it tends toward survival, and morals become good because they tend toward social stability. And genetic predispositions become good because they tend toward morality.

Hence we have genetic predispositions, because our morals, our society, and our survival are directly dependent upon them.

And for that you can thank evolution.

But this doesn't explain why something is morally right or wrong. It only explains how we know its wrong. Someone could then say "So why is a functional society or human survival a morally good thing. There is no basis for this either as its all subjective.

You're absolutely right. It's all subjective. It's all just a matter of personal preference. With the singular exception of evolution. With evolution everything is completely and totally black and white. It either survives or it doesn't, and evolution doesn't characterize either of those two outcomes as being good or bad. It's we the survivors who do that.

Evolution has blindly endowed us with existence, and a genetic predisposition toward morality has helped to make that possible. But characterizing such genetic predispositions as delineating good and bad is completely on us.

I agree we don’t question if our reality (physical world) is real. We just experience it, see it and sense it and process all that experience and determine we are justified to believe that what we see is real and not some computer simulation.

As a point of clarification, I don't assume that an objective physical reality actually exists. I simply recognize that at the very least, the illusion of a reality exists. The nature and source of that reality is unknown, and will always remain so. Reality may indeed be a computer simulation. Until it's conclusively shown that such a simulation isn't possible, the possibility remains open.

In order to rein in the increasing length of our responses, I'll stop here.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you subjectively think "honesty and truth" are unnecessary for the debate we are having right now then you can't ask me

"What makes you think when a person seek truth, the morals of honesty and truth values are independent beyond human subjective views?"

because there is no "honesty and truth" (ruling/guiding) our debate/discussion. Asking me questions to find the truth are irrelevant if "Truth" is no longer a necessary moral value.

Your logic here eludes me. There's absolutely no need for either of us to be honest and truthful in this debate. It's irrelevant.

For example I may think that you're either a genius, an idiot, or a liar, and the answers you give will simply aid me in deciding which of those is more likely. But to obtain those answers it's necessary to ask questions. It's not necessary however to assume that those answers are going to be either truthful or honest.

You may believe that truthfulness and honesty are a reasonable way to have a debate, but they're not a necessary way. So the need for truthfulness and honesty is purely subjective. You think that it's a good way to have a debate, but that doesn't make it a necessary way.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you subjectively think "honesty and truth" are unnecessary for the debate we are having right now then you can't ask me

"What makes you think when a person seek truth, the morals of honesty and truth values are independent beyond human subjective views?"

I’m not questioning whether honesty and truth are necessary, I’m questioning this idea that it has to be independent beyond human subjective views. How do you know this?

In that sense we have established that the morals of "Honesty and Truth" in our debate have a value beyond our personal views

Again how is it possible to have honesty and truth beyond our personal views? Consider this scenario. Let’s say we have a guy named Steve who recognizes truth cannot be based on his personal views, that it must be beyond him. Let’s say Steve is faced with the moral dilemma of action X. Let’s say action X is actually wrong, but according Steve’s personal views action X is good. What method does Steve employ to verify action X is bad?

 

[Kylie]

If one cannot argue their case then they often resort to adolescent name calling. So far, "you're manipulative", "you're deceitful" and now "you're ridiculous" are the ad hominems you and others have employed.

It's not an ad hominem if I explain why. Since I did, your claim that I am employing a logical fallacy doesn't hold.

Examine the illogical reasoning in your post. Do you not see it? Your false conclusion -- "rape is just as bad as stealing" -- does not follow from "either something is a mammal or it is not". What does follow is exactly what I have claimed. "Either something is immoral or it is not".

No. You presented it as a binary with no room for shades of grey, which you attempted to prove with your "Is a dog more mammal than a cat" argument or whatever it was, since being a mammal is binary. Something is either completely mammal or completely non-mammal, there are no shades of grey. By using that as the basis for your argument, you were saying that morality is likewise binary, that something is either morally good or morally bad, with no shades of grey. Just as you can't have degrees of mammalness, you can't have degrees of morality, but the argument you put forward. And if there are no degrees in morality, then one thing that is morally bad (stealing a chocolate bar) is equally as bad as another thing that is morally bad, like rape.

It's a natural conclusion from what you were saying.

Second, once again, as do others, you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. The question is "Is morality objective?" You begin by assuming that "because morality is subjective" which begs the question.

I have simply asked you how, if morality is objective as you claim, that morality is measured. Youa re attempting to deflect and avoid answering.

Show us the "good rape" case. Show us how taxonomy as used in the science of zoology is essentially different than categorizing moral and immoral acts based on objective criteria. Show us something besides how you feel about morality. I cannot argue how you feel about morality. I have argued about how one thinks about morality. And do, please, take a break from the ad hominems.

Show us how to measure morality. And stop trying to evade that question. Just answer it or admit that you can't.

 

[stevevw]

Obviously, it would be super helpful if it were physical. A strong pulse of magnetic field when something wicked happens. That would be objective, certainly, but that doesn't seem likely.

More likely it would have to be some quality of an act. To be real/objective, it would have to be unambiguous without the need for any human umpire to call balls and strikes, or to perceive this quality.

Thats right. Like determining real lived and necessary morals. They apply regardless of human subjective umpires. Their opinions and views don't count as the moral applies whether they like it or not. The only option people have if they choose not to respect and uphold those morals is to not engage in the moral situiation in the first place or abando it when they realize that things begin to breakdown without upholding those morals.

For example you need the moral value of "Honesty" in debates or dicussions seeking the truth. No opinion or subjective view from a human umpire can change that fact. The fact that "Honesty" stands independent untouchable from humans makes it objective and lends support for it being objective.

Think of the equivocal word 'sound'. One can think of it as compressions and rarefactions in air (or other medium). Or as 'a thing one hears'.

If a tree falls in a forest yadda yadda... certainly it makes a sound in the first sense, but not the second.

The first sense of sound is objective. And we know (I hope) that that tree does make a sound when it falls. As a matter of objective fact.

Sound as a physical phenomenon is a fact. An objective category. We can even apply qualities to sound like loudness that can be objectively measured, even if no human is there to hear it. We can apply other qualities to sound, like "Country & Western". This is not a natural category. Not an objective category. Indeed, 'musical genre' is a human invention. And clearly there will be grey areas, where people will have honest disagreements on genre.

We cannot measure genre of a sound if there is no human there to hear it. [At best, we could train an AI on human judgments, but I submit that we're not creating a machine that analyzes sound, but one that analyzes human judgments. And it would still be subject to grey areas and 'mistakes'.]

A robot cannot understand morality, it hasnt got a conscience to start with and nor can one be programmed.

It seems to me that morality is a human invention like genre. And thus there is no fact of the matter. We can determine loudness objectively, but not genre.

Genre can be found in evolution. BUt then thats a subjective determination. Just look at the debate over what a species is. So even the physical sciences can have disputes about what objective is. Therefore just because there are differences in views about morality or that its hard to determine doesnt logically follow that there are no objective moral facts.

Nor can we determine morality objectively. Or at least, the many requests for how to do this objective determination have been largely left unanswered. And I can't think of anything either. So much so that I think it is a fool's errand.

Thats because you seem to still think of evidence along the same way science measures objective like a physical object. Morality is an abscract idea like love or belief. But your not saying Love and belief are not real are you. Math is an abstract concept and doesnt have any ophysical form. Yet it is widely verified as a real way to determine/measure reality and is used in our daily lives. So therefore there are ways to prove abstract ideas besides measuring some physical form.

It might seem attractive to move entirely to the world of ideas, since my example still rests on the physical phenomenon of sound. But really things become worse. This way lies o_mily and the syllogisms. But we've already seen there is disagreement about the axioms and premises. These are matters of choice, not objective facts.

syllogisms and logical arguements are commonplace in support philosophical truths and even facts. Otherwise your dismissing a world of things that are non-physical claims for which the world is made up of and for what people accept and live by. A lot of the time these arguements are self-supporting and are not based on assumptions

What is the sum of the interior angles of a triangle? Depends on your axioms. And there's no objective fact of the matter.

No you have a specific triangle you are working with. (like a specific moral situation). You know that all angles of a triangle are 180 degrees. So you times this by the 3 angles of a triangle. It a formula to work by and the triangle s an objective fact. You can then determine the sum.

The same with objective morality. You have a specific moral situation. You observe how people act like morals are objective and then and assess whether these apply necessarily. If they do then they are self-evident and no one can dispute that they are unnnecessary. If they are necessary then they are objective as no amount of subjectivity can make them unnecessary for that specific situation. That is the support for objective morality.

So sure, you can work in some particular moral system resting on particular axioms, and you can grind out logical conclusions. But there is nothing objective about the choice of axioms that produced that system. And other equally internally consistent systems of morality will come to different conclusions.

Yes there are objective morals that apply regardless of choices. No assumptions are made about what morals apply. The morals that apply are determined by the way people act/react in lived moral situations.

When you test and assess that lived moral behaviour (using logic and rationality because morality is a rational enterprise) you find that some moral values apply regardless of peoples subjective opinions. They are not assumed by real lived moral facts observed.

 

[stevevw]

I’m not questioning whether honesty and truth are necessary, I’m questioning this idea that it has to be independent beyond human subjective views. How do you know this?

Because if we don't make these morals untouchable to subjective views then they no longer apply and we cant have our debate. Its simple logic. Live moral situations prove this fact. We could not have our debate seeking the truth full stop. Proof is in the pudding as they say.

Again how is it possible to have honesty and truth beyond our personal views? Consider this scenario. Let’s say we have a guy named Steve who recognizes truth cannot be based on his personal views, that it must be beyond him. Let’s say Steve is faced with the moral dilemma of action X. Let’s say action X is actually wrong, but according Steve’s personal views action X is good. What method does Steve employ to verify action X is bad?

Your not comparing apples with apples. Your introducing an entirely different moral situation to the one I am using which will not have the same reasoning. Stick with the one I am using as its easier to understand the point.

So we have a guy names Ken who thinks the application of "Honesty" to his debate with a friend is subjective. Therefore Kens friend can lie because he knows Ken doesnt think "Honesty" applies to his debate. That would be the end of the debate whether Ken likes it or not.

Thats why Ken has to make "Honesty" necessary even if he thinks its subjective and unnecessary to use because Ken could not have his debate for which there is an important matter he needs to understand. Ken could choose to never have debates or discussions seeking the truth of a matter.

But then Ken will quickly realize that he cannot be a human because seeking the truth is part of being human as evdienced by the way humans live out morality. They seem to apply morals like "Honesty" as objective implicitely without even thinking about it regardless of whetehr they believe in subjective morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because if we don't make these morals untouchable to subjective views then they no longer apply and we cant have our debate.

Explain how mankind can make morality untouchable to his subjective views.

Your not comparing apples with apples. Your introducing an entirely different moral situation to the one I am using which will not have the same reasoning.

No; you made a claim, I’m just asking you to explain how your claim works.

So we have a guy names Ken who thinks the application of "Honesty" to his debate with a friend is subjective. Therefore Kens friend can lie because he knows Ken doesnt think "Honesty" applies to his debate.

*Just because Ken says it’s Subjective doesn’t mean Ken doesn’t think honesty applies in his debate.
*Ken’s friend doesn’t magically obtain the ability to lie just because Ken believes honesty is subjective; his friend can lie just as easily regardless of what Ken believes about honesty.

Thats why Ken has to make "Honesty" necessary even if he thinks its subjective and unnecessary to use because Ken could not have his debate for which there is an important matter he needs to understand. Ken could choose to never have debates or discussions seeking the truth of a matter.

Your problem is you believe honesty being subjective is equal to no honesty at all; you couldn’t be more wrong.
Now care to answer my question? If morality is outside human thought/views, What method do we employ to verify good vs bad?

 

[essentialsaltes]

No you have a specific triangle you are working with. (like a specific moral situation). You know that all angles of a triangle are 180 degrees. So you times this by the 3 angles of a triangle. It a formula to work by and the triangle s an objective fact. You can then determine the sum.

No, you don't. You don't know that the triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees. Because if you choose different axioms it could be more or less. Like a specific moral situation, different axioms will yield different results. There is no objective choice of axioms in either case.

 

[Bradskii]

No, you don't. You don't know that the triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees. Because if you choose different axioms it could be more or less. Like a specific moral situation, different axioms will yield different results. There is no objective choice of axioms in either case.

I thought 'Whoa, that's not a great example'. But then it clicked...

Here are two triangles. The axioms for this one are valid and the axioms for the other one are valid. But they are different and you'll get different conclusions to certain questions.

Here are two people. Steve's axioms (premises) are true for him and yours are true for you. But they are different and will lead to different conclusions.

Darn it, I was going to have a break from this thread.

 

[stevevw]

Explain how mankind can make morality untouchable to his subjective views.

Not sure about that. But in the example I gave this showed that the moral values of "Honesty" and "Truth" are necessary and therefore untouchable.

No; you made a claim, I’m just asking you to explain how your claim works.

Ok But the scenario you gave was very ambigious. You were talking about action X being right and wrong but never explain yourself how you were determining these are correctly right and wrong without any objective measure. So it was an unreal sceario or at least one that was not very clear.

*Just because Ken says it’s Subjective doesn’t mean Ken doesn’t think honesty applies in his debate.

Yes but because Ken thinks its Honesty is subjective the scenario has to potentially allow for him to reject applying Honesty if he chooses. But he can't even if he wanted to because "Honesty" is necessary.

*Ken’s friend doesn’t magically obtain the ability to lie just because Ken believes honesty is subjective; his friend can lie just as easily regardless of what Ken believes about honesty.

The point is the moral values of "Honesty and Truth"have lost their status as rules and guides for your debate. If you friend lies you have no way of telling or point this out to him. If you still choose to tell the truth no one will know its the truth as the "Truth" as once again there is no way to measure this.

Your problem is you believe honesty being subjective is equal to no honesty at all; you couldn’t be more wrong.

There is no morality at all if you are measuring it under subjective morality because there is no measure of " Honesty" beyond the person. Its just personal opinions which could be anything and there is no truth about those personal opinions.

Now care to answer my question? If morality is outside human thought/views, What method do we employ to verify good vs bad?

We use moral realism. How morality works in real life. We have to look at each situation and determine if the morals are objective or not as I have done in the debate scenario.

 

[stevevw]

No, you don't. You don't know that the triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees. Because if you choose different axioms it could be more or less. Like a specific moral situation, different axioms will yield different results. There is no objective choice of axioms in either case.

Then you investigate what the angles are of the triangle before you make your determination. Likewise you look at the moral situation and determine if there is a moral duty owed or that any morals apply objectively.

 

[stevevw]

Your logic here eludes me. There's absolutely no need for either of us to be honest and truthful in this debate. It's irrelevant.

So lets take our current debate. If I think "honesty and truth" are subjective morals then I can keep making up logical fallacies to win my arguement and the debate would breakdown because you could not tell which was a lie and which was the truth. You couldn't challenge my fallacies to test my "Honesty" because I don't think I have done anything wrong.

I am not saying that every debate where a person who supports subjective morals will decend into a meaningless rabble. But under a subjective system there is no reason why anyone has to respect "Honesty and/or Truth". In other words "Honesty and Truth"have no independent status of value. They depend on how the subjectivists views those values in that debate.

For example I may think that you're either a genius, an idiot, or a liar, and the answers you give will simply aid me in deciding which of those is more likely. But to obtain those answers it's necessary to ask questions. It's not necessary however to assume that those answers are going to be either truthful or honest.

The the question then becomes why are you asking those questions. I would say you are seeking the "Truth" of the matter "Whether I am a genius, an idiot, or a liar". But you are using "Truth" as the measure to determine this. So you are implicitly making the "Truth" valuable and independent of your personal views because if you were a subjectivist who thought there was no truth then you could not ask those questions. So the scenario excludes subjectivists by default.

Once again that doesnt mean a subjectivist cannot have a debate seeking truth. But it does mean they have little choice but to make "Honesty and Truth" independent values. They allow them to rule and guide the debate. They agree to be honest, not misrepresent peoples arguements with fallacies, not lie ect.

Likewise if I am a subjectivist I could lie and be very good at it and you would never be able to work out with any confidence which one I was because the discussion would just become too hard to tell what for what.

You may believe that truthfulness and honesty are a reasonable way to have a debate, but they're not a necessary way. So the need for truthfulness and honesty is purely subjective. You think that it's a good way to have a debate, but that doesn't make it a necessary way.

They are necessary in a scenario I am using about seeking the "Truth" of a matter because its self evident "You need the Truth to find the Truth" regardless of subjective views.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The alternative to objective morality is relativism, which is the attitude of "It may be right for you, but not necessarily for me". It is also expressed as "You have your opinion and I have mine".

 

[Bradskii]

The alternative to objective morality is relativism, which is the attitude of "It may be right for you, but not necessarily for me". It is also expressed as "You have your opinion and I have mine".

No, the alternative is subjectivism. Relativism is the other side of the absolutism coin. Then again, if morality is absolute then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. So it's all objective as well.

Welcome to the Wonderful World Of Black And White.

 

[stevevw]

No, the alternative is subjectivism. Relativism is the other side of the absolutism coin. Then again, if morality is absolute then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. So it's all objective as well.

Welcome to the Wonderful World Of Black And White.

 

[o_mlly]

It's not an ad hominem if I explain why.

Yes, it is. You may call the argument "ridiculous" but not the poster.

You presented it as a binary with no room for shades of grey, which you attempted to prove with your "Is a dog more mammal than a cat" argument or whatever it was, since being a mammal is binary. Something is either completely mammal or completely non-mammal, there are no shades of grey.

If the category "mammal" has shades of grey then you must have some creature in mind that the taxonomists have missed. Kindly identify that creature for us.

By using that as the basis for your argument, you were saying that morality is likewise binary, that something is either morally good or morally bad, with no shades of grey. Just as you can't have degrees of mammalness, you can't have degrees of morality, but the argument you put forward. And if there are no degrees in morality, then one thing that is morally bad (stealing a chocolate bar) is equally as bad as another thing that is morally bad, like rape.

? Do you have a "typo" to correct? The "but the argument you put forward" has no consequent or predicate. ? What follows from this disjunctive phrase does not make sense. Kindly rewrite your thought.

I have simply asked you how, if morality is objective as you claim, that morality is measured. Youa re attempting to deflect and avoid answering.

Without argument, you assert that objectivity requires measure-ability. Let's have your argument to support your assertion.

 

[stevevw]

No, I do understand it. You, obviously, really dont.

Are you saying that moral realists don't use rationality to determine moral facts/truths.