Is there Objective Morality?

[Belk]

"Morality is objective" and "there exists an objective morality" are two entirely different statements.

They are. The first implies an absolute while the second implies a limited number of instances. That still does not make morality objective if there is an optimum path as far as I can see. Optimum is not synonymous with objective. Optimum would actually seem to indicate subjective since it speaks to an opinion on what is best.

 

[TheWhat?]

They are. The first implies an absolute while the second implies a limited number of instances. That still does not make morality objective if there is an optimum path as far as I can see. Optimum is not synonymous with objective. Optimum would actually seem to indicate subjective since it speaks to an opinion on what is best.

Besides dodging the argument, unfortunately I think you've missed the point.

Rivers cannot predictably form along a path of greatest descent if that path does not first exist. As someone who has worked with machine learning algorithms, I've had the pleasure of observing how artificial evolutionary algorithms work to cause randomized elements to converge on predefined, optimal solutions, and then re-converge, and on and on. It's a sight to see. And if you're thinking this isn't how evolution works, consider the White-throated rail, a living demonstration.

There need not exist a mysterious world beyond ours to support my argument. I'm saying physical reality in its current state defines its own "world of forms."

Given you're agnostic, I'm assuming you're familiar with the theory of evolution. Many like to assume that everything is void, chaotic and formless. It's possibly because they are not so mathematically inclined or they just prefer to imagine things in a way that makes them feel comfortable for whatever reason.

 

[Belk]

Besides dodging the argument, unfortunately I think you've missed the point.

What argument is it you believe me to be dodging?

Rivers cannot predictably form along a path of greatest descent if that path does not first exist.

Yes. Nothing can follow a path that does not exist.

As someone who has worked with machine learning algorithms, I've had the pleasure of observing how artificial evolutionary algorithms work to cause randomized elements to converge on predefined, optimal solutions, and then re-converge, and on and on. It's a sight to see. And if you're thinking this isn't how evolution works, consider the White-throated rail, a living demonstration.

Evolution does not work on predefined optimal solutions. It simply works on selection pressures. I do agree that using the same process to come up with unique solutions to problems is a sight to behold.

There need not exist a mysterious world beyond ours to support my argument. I'm saying physical reality in its current state defines its own "world of forms."

What is a "world of forms."?

Given you're agnostic, I'm assuming you're familiar with the theory of evolution. Many like to assume that everything is void, chaotic and formless. It's possibly because they are not so mathematically inclined or they just prefer to imagine things in a way that makes them feel comfortable for whatever reason.

<Looks around at the world> Who does and why would they assume something not in evidence?


I'm sorry but I don't understand your point here. What does any of this have to do with my response to your ideas?

 

[Ken-1122]

? Are we not part of the universe?

• All empirical science is based on observation.
  
• Observations require an observer.
  
• An observer has a particular perspective.
  
• Perception is in the mind of the observer, ie., subjective.
  
• All empirical science is subjective.

Science is based on empirical evidence; thus is not subjective.

 

[o_mlly]

Look we can study atoms and discover that certain quantum transitions are forbidden. (Because they violate conservation of conserved properties.) We can study humans and find that some of them murder people and some of them don't. But these objective statements about people's behavior don't lead ineluctably to any oughts.

Forbidden? Probably better stated as not yet observed, especially in the quantum world.

Unlike the quark, humans have free will. If you deny this fact then you must admit that this forum doesn't serve much purpose. Since humans have free will they can choose to act in opposition to a moral law. Doing so does not negate the law but only serves to confirm the freedom to do so exists. We discover natural physical laws through empirical science. We discover moral laws through rational "science" as in:

• All innocent human beings have a right to their bodily integrity.
• All others have a reciprocal obligation to respect the rights of others.
• Rape violates a person's bodily integrity.
• Therefore, rape is objectively forbidden.

If someone does not believe the truth of this moral law then their disbelief does not relegate the law to be merely subjectively true just as the Flat Earth Society's belief does not relegate the spherical shape of the earth to merely be subjectively true.

 

[essentialsaltes]

• All innocent human beings have a right to their bodily integrity.

Rights are just agreements or conventions among people and governments. I don't see anything objective about them.

 

[o_mlly]

Rights are just agreements or conventions among people and governments. I don't see anything objective about them.

You should. As a rational person who has already agreed to that premise, do you deny any of the logical points that follow?

 

[durangodawood]

human beings typically value living in a stable society

This is a value that people place on things. It is not some sort of inherent objective value. Gold is only valuable because people value it.

Some values are entirely subjective. Other values are objectively natural to a species.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You should.

Because I like the idea of a right to personal autonomy, I should conclude it is objective? No no no, that can't be right. Certainly the conclusion follows from my clearly stated opinions, but this seems almost the opposite of objectivity.

Look, I think there's just some terrible confusion here about what 'objective' means.

You keep framing things as arguments, and asking for an argument for this or that. This does not get us an iota closer to objectivity.

If my spouse asks me if we're out of toilet paper, there is an objective answer. The answer does not require a logical argument based on assumptions I have chosen.

There can even be objective answers about things of the human world and invention.

"Helena is currently the capital of Montana" is an objectively true statement.

One's opinion that Missoula would be a better choice doesn't affect the objective fact of the matter.

But in the case of moral statements there seems to be no way to check the linen cabinet or consult the state law. They don't seem accessible to 'fact-checking'. I can check how things are. But I can't check how things should be.

 

[TheWhat?]

- nevermind -

 

[Ken-1122]

• All innocent human beings have a right to their bodily integrity.
• All others have a reciprocal obligation to respect the rights of others.

Is this just your opinion? Or do you have some objective proof to back up these claims.

 

[durangodawood]

Indeed. I should think the use of the word typical implies occurrences of the atypical that in and of itself implies subjectivity.

Objective means universal?

No, the human species is characterized by x y and z traits. Those include having two arms. Does every human have two arms? No. So is that particular characteristic somehow less objective?

 

[Ken-1122]

Objective means universal?

No, the human species is characterized by x y and z traits. Those include having two arms. Does every human have two arms? No. So is that particular characteristic somehow less objective?

Can you prove all humans are characterized as having 2 arms? If not, then yes; it is less objective. And just because humans may be characterized some way, doesn't mean the characteristic applies to all humans; handicap or not.

 

[durangodawood]

Can you prove all humans are characterized as having 2 arms? If not, then yes; it is less objective. And just because humans may be characterized some way, doesn't mean the characteristic applies to all humans; handicap or not.

You are confusing the objective/subjective distinction with something else. Perhaps you are thinking of true/untrue, which is not the same thing at all.

 

[Ken-1122]

You are confusing the objective/subjective distinction with something else. Perhaps you are thinking of true/untrue, which is not the same thing at all.

No; you appear to mistake objective as meaning Universal. Universal means applied to everything, objective means based on fact.

 

[durangodawood]

....Universal means applied to everything, objective means based on fact.

Yeah. Exactly.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yeah. Exactly.

Just because something is applied to everything, does not make it objective.

 

[stevevw]

Just like how you react as though some food is objectively tasty when you have no time to think about things. My analogy continues to win.

This is different to what I am talking about. I am talking about how a person has decided in advance whether they believe in subjective or objective morality. Morality is either subjective or objective. So a person who thinks morality is subjective has decided that well before they find themselves caught in moral situations be surprise.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is different to what I am talking about. I am talking about how a person has decided in advance whether they believe in subjective or objective morality. Morality is either subjective or objective. So a person who thinks morality is subjective has decided that well before they find themselves caught in moral situations be surprise.

It isn't different. You've decided already that taste is subjective, but you'll find a time comes (just like it came before) when someone surprises you by disliking something you love, and you'll think they're wrong to disagree. Sorry, buddy, but it's a perfect analogy.

 

[stevevw]

Each person will likely say the other is not entitled to his wrong moral view.

You didn’t answer the question. In a free democratic society is each person entitled to their personal moral view even if each person says the other is not entitled to their wrong moral view?

There may be, but the other person will not respect that which is in place if he doesn’t agree with it; this is regardless of subjective or objective morality.

Saying “there may be” something that stops a person having a personal moral view doesn’t help us in answering this question. A person can disagree with another person’s subjective moral but that doesn’t stop the other person holding that moral view.

In fact is there are laws protecting people’s rights to their opinion and freedom of expression including their moral views and beliefs in a democratic and free society. That being the case there is nothing stopping a person holding a personal view on morality.

The right to freedom of opinion and expression
The right to freedom of opinion and expression is contained in articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)- external site.

See also articles 4 and 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)- external site , articles 12 and 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)- external site and article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)- external site.
Right to freedom of opinion and expression

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia

Morality does not exist outside of sentient beings; so what do you mean by outside of the person?

You said that like you know the truth that there is no morality outside of sentient beings. How do I know you know the truth on this matter. Isn't this just your personal opinion. See how subjective morality refutes itself. On the one hand people claim morals are subjective and there is no ultimate truth. But on the other hand they proclaim truths like they are objective. So we live like there are objective truths in the world.

So the question is does a person’s personal moral views mean that they are factual or objective beyond the personal views of the person or does it only apply to the person.

My dislike of certain foods does not affect other people; my views of morality does so the two can’t be compared.

I mean in explaining how subjectivity works compared to objectivity and not how they affect people. People often compare personal views about liking or disliking food to personal views about morality. Both are what the person personally thinks and how they see things.

Your personal views on morality don’t affect people either. Most the time people just keep their views to themselves and if they are truely subjuective they should not affect others because they are just about you and not others. But surely your moral views won’t be dictated by what people think. It’s your opinion no matter how they affect people.

Subjective morality is not about likes vs dislikes, it’s about right vs wrong, and moral values.

Then why do so many people who support subjective moral including the majority of people in this thread compare subjective morality to ‘likes and dislikes’.

#208 Likes, dislikes, tastes, and preferences. That's all morality is under subjectivism.
#396 Value judgments often express nothing more than individual likes or dislikes, desires or aversions. They are entirely subjective and relative to the individual who makes them
#289 No. We share the same subjective opinion. Just like we agree that candy tastes better than dog poop
#291 Are you now saying that in your biased opinion rape is universally immoral but you could be wrong? That is, as a matter of taste -- not truth -- rape is objectively immoral just for you?

Objective truths as opposed to subjective preferences (likes or dislikes) are based on the external world.
https://www.amazon.com/ETHIX-Being-Bold-Whatever-World/dp/0805445196
“Likes and dislikes”
Universality and necessity are precisely the features that are not attributed to the subjective in our sense; the usual force of ‘subjective’ in our sense is to deny these, especially universality. (Thus, for example, the “likes and dislikes” of taste, for us, are subjective and, in the relevant sense, peculiar to agents.
The Metaphysics of the Moral Law: Kant's Deduction of Freedom