Is there Objective Morality?

[Bradskii]

So we have both given our opinions, lets see whose opinion may be more supported by independent evidence.

Indeed, relying on your intuition generally has a bad reputation, especially in the Western part of the world where analytic thinking has been steadily promoted over the past decades. Gradually, many have come to think that humans have progressed from relying on primitive, magical and religious thinking to analytic and scientific thinking. As a result, they view emotions and intuition as fallible, even whimsical, tools.

However, this attitude is based on a myth of cognitive progress. Emotions are actually not dumb responses that always need to be ignored or even corrected by rational faculties. They are appraisals of what you have just experienced or thought of – in this sense; they are also a form of information processing.
Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain.
This matching between prior models (based on past experience) and current experience happens automatically and subconsciously. Intuitions occur when your brain has made a significant match or mismatch (between the cognitive model and current experience), but this has not yet reached your conscious awareness.
It is time to stop the witch hunt on intuition, and see it for what it is: a fast, automatic, subconscious processing style that can provide us with very useful information that deliberate analysing can’t.
https://theconversation.com/is-it-r...-gut-feelings-a-neuroscientist-explains-95086

Could this be a more accurate definition of a subjective decision?

'They are appraisals of what you have just experienced or thought of – in this sense; they are also a form of information processing.
Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain.
This matching between prior models (based on past experience) and current experience happens automatically and subconsciously. Intuitions occur when your brain has made a significant match or mismatch (between the cognitive model and current experience), but this has not yet reached your conscious awareness.'

You've just stated that decisions on morality are made based on whatever is happening to us right now and our memories of what happened to us previously. Could that possibly be more subjective?

And if you read any of the literature of intuition then you will find that the subconscious looks for the quickest available answer that matches the current problem together with the most easily retrievable memory - right or wrong. Speed is the essence. Not accuracy. And the problem is that our conscious post hoc reappraisal of the problem invariably formulates a narrative that matches the initial decision.

You've just claimed that 'Hey, if it feels good, then that's the decision I'm going with'.

So it seems humans do act like "Justice" is something we cannot play around with and change due to subjective or even Nilhilism.

Yet in the sentence that proceeded that, you actually said that justice was 'self defined'. Again, how can something each of us personally defines be objective?

This is like Alice Through The Looking Glass...

 

[Moral Orel]

I think its self defined.

No word is self defined. They're all just strings of characters until we assign them meaning. Folks can't understand what you're trying to convey if you don't define your terms.

 

[stevevw]

You just keep declaring that we're acting as though it's objective. But we could only say that if we know how folks would act if it wasn't objective to compare it to.

As previously pointed out much earlier in the thread, we act as though flavors are objectively good and other people are incorrect to disagree with us. We've all done it: told another person they're wrong to think something tastes good or bad when we were disgusted or enjoyed it, respectively. But how about another example?

Let me stick with this one first as the next example changes the subjec tive reason. Yes I agree with can get opinionated. Especially on social media. But we don't then go and condemn, stop, force to conform, others who dislike the flavor we like. But thats how people act with morality. Thats why subjective tastes does not account for moral behaviour.

Let's suppose I accidentally place my hand on a hot stove and the stove burns me, so I pull my hand away. I say that I did so because the stove caused me pain, and I dislike pain, so I acted to remove the experience I disliked.

You would say that the stove was morally wrong to burn me, and I recognized that through my intuition, so I acted as though I was wronged. Yes, yes, I know. You're going to say that inanimate objects are not moral agents so it doesn't count. But so what? I still acted the same way I would act if a man cut my hand with a knife. So we act the same whether we're in a situation you would invoke morality as we would act in a situation where you would not invoke morality.

So why should we think morality is objective because we act just like we do when we simply dislike something?

You lost me on that second example. I understood up to the someone reeling in pain after touching a hotplate. This is one of Sam Harris's arguements with his book "MOral Landscape".

He makes "Pain and Pleasure" equate to moral right and wrong. It has been refuted because peoples view of "Pain" is also subjective. Sometimes pain is good for growth and medical procedures. Sometimes Pleasure is bad ie fatty food is pleasurable but can give you a heart attack. So Pain is still a human made measure.

But if I understood part of what you are saying I would say the stove was morally wrong. To equate it to moral realims the persons experience of pain would be real and not something that can be subjective made out like its not real. Just just a person experiences say stealing. They react like its wrong. They reaction is real andbecause the situation mattered morally. How do we know this and can react this way so quickly.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually more along the lines of epistemology.

Ok I forgot your a moral nilhilist. I keep forgetting. We if thats how you see things there is not a lot I can say then. But happens only say how it is views under moral realism. Basically humans act like things matter. Especially moral situations. You say your human and moral situations don't matter. So for example when you see an old lady getting mugged in the street that doesnt matter.

I think its self defined. Its something once again we intuitively know and want. Certainly don't want injustice that seems very clear in the way society has been acting. So it seems humans do act like "Justice" is something we cannot play around with and change due to subjective or even Nilhilism.

You dont understand value nihilism at all.

 

[stevevw]

No word is self defined. They're all just strings of characters until we assign them meaning. Folks can't understand what you're trying to convey if you don't define your terms.

Yes I agree you make a good point.

 

[stevevw]

You dont understand value nihilism at all.

No I don't completely. Ive read a bit. But I know there are different levels of Nilhilism more extreme than others. I just cannot understand how someone can argue morals are valueless. From what I understand its a very pessimistic view so its hard to convince someone.

Moral realism is the complete opposite. Arguements can be made for how life is valuable and all of human history testifies to this. That is I think the basis for I think all the worldviews to converge on. Evolution puts life at the pinacle to keep alive as important. All or most religions and other mystical beliefs, philosophies make life important, precious, valuable. So this is the basis from where all morals have value.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let me stick with this one first as the next example changes the subjec tive reason. Yes I agree with can get opinionated. Especially on social media. But we don't then go and condemn, stop, force to conform, others who dislike the flavor we like. But thats how people act with morality. Thats why subjective tastes does not account for moral behaviour.

That's because there are different experiences. In one experience, I am eating Brussel sprouts, feeling disgusted, and wanting to spit it out. If someone else is eating a Brussel sprout, my experience is that of watching someone eat. I dislike eating Brussel sprouts, I do not dislike watching someone eat. You are conflating two entirely different experiences. Of course we have different reactions to different experiences.

Coincidentally, I think that this confusion about tasting something and deeming it bad is likely how dietary restrictions showed up in religions. Some religious elder didn't like pork, so everyone "should" agree that it is bad, etc.

You lost me on that second example. I understood up to the someone reeling in pain after touching a hotplate. This is one of Sam Harris's arguements with his book "MOral Landscape".

He makes "Pain and Pleasure" equate to moral right and wrong. It has been refuted because peoples view of "Pain" is also subjective.

This is wrong. He doesn't talk about "pleasure and pain". He talks about "human well-being" which bypasses your strawman.

But if I understood part of what you are saying I would say the stove was morally wrong. To equate it to moral realims the persons experience of pain would be real and not something that can be subjective made out like its not real. Just just a person experiences say stealing. They react like its wrong. They reaction is real andbecause the situation mattered morally. How do we know this and can react this way so quickly.

So an inanimate object, without the ability to reason, acted immorally. Really?

Then Brussel sprouts act immorally by affecting my tongue the way they do. lol

 

[VirOptimus]

No I don't completely. Ive read a bit. But I know there are different levels of Nilhilism more extreme than others. I just cannot understand how someone can argue morals are valueless. From what I understand its a very pessimistic view so its hard to convince someone.

Moral realism is the complete opposite. Arguements can be made for how life is valuable and all of human history testifies to this. That is I think the basis for I think all the worldviews to converge on. Evolution puts life at the pinacle to keep alive as important. All or most religions and other mystical beliefs, philosophies make life important, precious, valuable. So this is the basis from where all morals have value.

Value nihilism is not pessimistic, quite the opposite.

 

[VirOptimus]

So we have both given our opinions, lets see whose opinion may be more supported by independent evidence.

Indeed, relying on your intuition generally has a bad reputation, especially in the Western part of the world where analytic thinking has been steadily promoted over the past decades. Gradually, many have come to think that humans have progressed from relying on primitive, magical and religious thinking to analytic and scientific thinking. As a result, they view emotions and intuition as fallible, even whimsical, tools.

However, this attitude is based on a myth of cognitive progress. Emotions are actually not dumb responses that always need to be ignored or even corrected by rational faculties. They are appraisals of what you have just experienced or thought of – in this sense; they are also a form of information processing.
Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain.
This matching between prior models (based on past experience) and current experience happens automatically and subconsciously. Intuitions occur when your brain has made a significant match or mismatch (between the cognitive model and current experience), but this has not yet reached your conscious awareness.
It is time to stop the witch hunt on intuition, and see it for what it is: a fast, automatic, subconscious processing style that can provide us with very useful information that deliberate analysing can’t.
https://theconversation.com/is-it-r...-gut-feelings-a-neuroscientist-explains-95086

This in no way support your assertion.

 

[stevevw]

Value nihilism is not pessimistic, quite the opposite.

Ok I will have to read some more.

 

[stevevw]

This in no way support your assertion.

I just did. You said we don't intuitive know some things are right or wrong and I said we can and provided independent evidence.

Other than that I don't know what other specific assertion you are referring to.

 

[VirOptimus]

I just did. You said we don't intuitive know some things are right or wrong and I said we can and provided independent evidence.

Other than that I don't know what other specific assertion you are referring to.

You dont understand your own article.

 

[stevevw]

That's because there are different experiences. In one experience, I am eating Brussel sprouts, feeling disgusted, and wanting to spit it out. If someone else is eating a Brussel sprout, my experience is that of watching someone eat. I dislike eating Brussel sprouts, I do not dislike watching someone eat. You are conflating two entirely different experiences. Of course we have different reactions to different experiences.

Coincidentally, I think that this confusion about tasting something and deeming it bad is likely how dietary restrictions showed up in religions. Some religious elder didn't like pork, so everyone "should" agree that it is bad, etc.

I think your misunderstanding the anology. Subjectivists say that morality is the same as food preferences. First is that a fair comparison.

This is wrong. He doesn't talk about "pleasure and pain". He talks about "human well-being" which bypasses your strawman.

Actually his main arguement for why we should make Human Well-being the objective basis is because of pain and pleasure (human joy). He argues that human joy is better than pain. So anything that brings pain is not the best state for joyful human consciousness.

Harris does not come down very clearly in favour of any one particular set of conscious states that he takes to constitute well-being, so I’ve left a placeholder in the argument in square brackets. You should imagine the placeholder as having been determinately filled in in whichever way Harris thinks appropriate.

It has to be filled in one way or another so that scientists will know which states to measure. One traditional account of well-being that Harris seems sympathetic to in places is the classic utilitarian definition in terms of pleasures and pains: the greater well-being one has, the greater the balance of one’s pleasures over pains.
Sam Harris, the Naturalistic Fallacy, and the Slipperiness of "Well-Being" | Practical Ethics

So an inanimate object, without the ability to reason, acted immorally. Really?

No what makes morality real is it that it is between humans. Moral duties/obligations can only be made between people.

Then Brussel sprouts act immorally by affecting my tongue the way they do. lol

Now I'm getting this picture of Sprouts acting like M & Ms conspiring to trick us up.

The stove and sprouts are just props in your moral scenario. The realness is in the way we act/react in moral situations. WE act like it matters so therefore we can and should determine if there is any way we can act that is better than other ways to act in those situations. That helps us determine if there are any moral truths/facts.

 

[stevevw]

You dont understand your own article.

why is that

 

[o_mlly]

Now the girl is kept in the exact same room, fed and watered, for 10 years. I'll assume that you'll find that objectively bad (feel free to confirm that).

When did it become objectively bad?

The question is not when but how did the act become immoral. The intention of the father who wills as a punishment for cursing her mother to "feed and water his child for ten years" is an evil intention.

Punishment is not an end in itself but, especially, in the case of a child, is instrumental or medicinal to bring about some good. Now as predicted, you'll introduce some new facet to the case that you'll claim was "obvious" but this play has ended.

 

[o_mlly]

One doesn't decide if a fact is true or not. You can decide to accept the evidence for one proposal over another and you might then believe one way or another. But you can't decide what the actual shape is.

? You wanna take another attempt to make whatever your point might be because it's hopelessly lost in the above?

 

[Moral Orel]

I think your misunderstanding the anology.

No, I get it.

Subjectivists say that morality is the same as food preferences. First is that a fair comparison.

Yep.

No what makes morality real is it that it is between humans. Moral duties/obligations can only be made between people.

Right, it isn't a moral situation, yet we act just like we do when we have a situation where morality is involved. So your claim that we act as though morality is objective doesn't mean anything since we act the same even when morality has nothing to do with it.

WE act like it matters so therefore we can and should determine if there is any way we can act that is better than other ways to act in those situations.

No. We want to determine if there is any way we can act that prevents the things we dislike and promotes the things we do like. Just because we want something doesn't mean we should have that thing.

Drug addicts act like their next fix matters, so therefore they can and should determine if there is any way they can act that is better at getting them more drugs in any given situation. Is that right?

 

[Bradskii]

The question is not when but how did the act become immoral.

No, no new facts. We can go with what we've got.

But how it became immoral? It became immoral because he kept her there too long. I would have thought that was obvious.

I think that most people would say that an hour is ok. But three hours is a bit too much. And a day sounds too long. Depending on their views on how children should be brought up of course. And almost everyone would say that keeping a child in the basement for a week is definitely wrong. And a year? Well, it couldn't be more wrong.

So no-one would think that it was perfectly OK at one specific time - say 60 minutes, and then completely wrong at 61 minutes. It gradually becomes less acceptable. And there'd be some grey areas where some might agree and some not. Personal opinion as it were.

So do we have A) a situation where some act is a little bit objectively wrong? And then a little bit more objectively wrong? And then completely objectively wrong?

Or do you think it's B) where there must be a specific point when it went from ok to being wrong. When was that do you think?

 

[Bradskii]

? You wanna take another attempt to make whatever your point might be because it's hopelessly lost in the above?

No. I'm good with that.

 

[IWalkAlone]

You can make a personal decision as to whether to accept or reject evidence presented which will allow you to make a judgement: 'X is false'. That decision cannot be objective because it is your personal opinion (whether you are right or not is irrelevant). It is your personal interpretation of the evidence. Someone else may come to another opinion: 'X is true'.

X may be objectively true or false, but both judgements are subjective.

No. Like i said, if i kill or steal i risk going to prison. That's not an opinion but a fact that everybody agrees on and it can be observed.