Is there Objective Morality?

[zippy2006]

Arguing is about persuasion, not proof. Naively, people think proof is persuasive.

You don't think proof is persuasive?

But there is sound reasoning going on.

No there isn't. Not unless we are changing topics. We've been arguing about the case where someone offers an argument that they believe to be fallacious (begun in post #677). Now you've switched to talking about sound arguments.

So let's say that I hate slavery, and you think it's objectively good. But we both hate human suffering. So I give sound reasoning why slavery promotes human suffering to convince you to hate slavery too. That's what's going on. There is that one last subjective leap at the end where the association between human suffering and slavery is formed, but there's still plenty of sound reasoning.

Regarding this new topic, I at least agree that some of the reasoning would be sound. Your emotivism makes things tricky, but for most people--such as those I tagged--slavery is morally repulsive, and the implication is that the slaveholder has done something (objectively) wrong. But if you can't make that last jump between human suffering and slavery, then you could never hold that the slaveholder has done wrong. Their position is nonsensical.

Here is a movie argument that I once had ('M' for movie):

M1: If a movie is fundamentally rooted in a logical fallacy, then it is a bad movie.
M2: Viciously circular causation in time travel movies is logically fallacious.
M3: Interstellar is a time travel movie that contains vicious circular causation.
M4: Interstellar is fundamentally rooted in a logical fallacy.
M5: Therefore, Interstellar is a bad movie.​

Let's suppose--and it seems to me--that the arguments leading up to M4 are sound, and thus M4 is objectively true. Nevertheless, M5 is debatable because M1 is debatable. So it's a question of "that one last leap."

The point that I have been making is that if someone holds that M5 is objective, then they must also hold that M1 is objective. The atheists of #681 have heard someone claim that Interstellar is a good movie, and in response they berate him, inform him that it is a bad movie, and give argument M1-M5. When questioned, they affirm that M1 is subjective and not objective. My point is that they have no rational cause to berate him if they hold M1 to be subjective, and that they therefore should not berate him or argue with him over M5 if they believe M1 is merely subjective ("argument presupposes objectivity").

 

[Bradskii]

Doin it is good because it feels great. That's subjective morality. We don't say things are good because we evolved to do them. We evolved to like certain things and we call them good because we like them. We like doin' it, we like eating. When we started becoming social creatures and evolved empathy, we didn't like seeing others starve and we did like seeing starving people fed, so we call those bad and good, respectively. It's all just likes and dislikes, the same as flavors of whiskey. The things we call "moral" are the things we would like other people to do, so we made up the word "should" to compel them.

It's not just us. @Kylie mentioned reciprocal altruism in bats some time ago. Vampire bats will share food with other non related bats. I'm pretty certain they aren't getting a nice warm glow in helping someone less fortunate. I wouldn't think that bats were very well morally developed. So we see this behaviour in nature.

Do you know why we're generally monogamous? And morally speaking, sleeping with multiple partners is frowned upon? It's because our species is sexually dimorphic. That is, there's not a lot of difference in size between male and female. Sexually dimorphic species are invariably monogamous and those that are not will generally have multiple partners (mostly a single male with multiple females).

In sexually dimorphic species, both male and female will generally help out in rearing offspring whereas the opposite is mostly true in those species that aren't. In those species you will also see a lot of fighting between males to earn the right to mate with as many females as he wants.

The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky once wrote that “nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.” There is a tendency in the literature to draw a few long bows and look for evolutionary answers to questions that might better be explained by psychology or sociobiology - but it's amazing to think about why we do certain things and how we act in certain circumstances when viewed through the evolutionary lens.

 

[zippy2006]

I disagree! First of all, nobody says something is subjectively wrong or objectively wrong, they just say it’s wrong.

And they mean that it is objectively wrong: wrong for everyone and able to be known to be wrong. Or to use your definition, "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions."

When someone claims something to be wrong, that claim comes from the mind; and can be denied by anything with a mind; humans, dogs, lions, etc. That makes it subjective. The claim that there is a big tree on my front lawn is not something that comes from my mind, so it can’t be denied with anything with a mind; humans, dogs, lions, etc will agree with this objective claim.

The tree in your front lawn comes from your mind, ask any neuroscientist. @essentialsaltes gave a very similar definition of subjectivity, which he was unable to defend. This is how I responded to him:

So sure, if we define "objective" as "independent of people," then morality isn’t objective. But in that case neither are toenails, or houses, or sailboats, or global warming, or mathematics, etc.

That’s where the discussion comes in. You use arguments like empathy, fairness, or kindness to make your point. However if the person is a nihilist, you might not have much luck convincing him.

If an argument about fairness can show an act to be wrong, then can't it be known to be wrong via fairness, and isn't it then objective?

2+2=4 is something known by the mind, and it can be shown to be true through the concept of addition. Since it can be shown to be true, it is objective.

Below are a couple of links that confirms my claim of the differences between that which is objective vs that which is subjective.
Difference between Objective and Subjective | Objective vs Subjective Comparison
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

Okay, I suppose I was thinking of more authoritative sources, like philosophical or scientific authorities.

 

[zippy2006]

There is, to a degree, a certain amount of objectivity. Are the ingredients fresh? Have they been prepared in a way that doesn't burn the food? Has the food been prepared with care, or was everything just slopped on the plate? But for things like whether a person likes the taste or not, or whether they find the presentation aesthetically pleasing, that is indeed subjective and purely a taste matter.

And presumably you would only legitimately argue about things that can be objectively verified, like the freshness of the ingredients or whether the food is burned? If the presentation is subjective then it is unable to be verified as good or bad, and cannot be argued about. So insofar as you (legitimately) argue about something, you think it is objectively knowable. I sure don't know why you would be arguing about things that are not knowable or not subject to truth and falsity.

 

[zippy2006]

Obviously, if there are no moral facts, then 'objectively wrong' is not a claim anyone can make. This doesn't prevent anyone from expressing or arguing in favor of their opinions.

Of course it does. If there is no right or wrong you shouldn't go around arguing that things are right and wrong.

[I believe] Slavery is wrong! [I believe] Slaveholders have done something wrong! Of course we can get upset. Once again, because these moral things are subjective, they matter to us. You can't feed me Brussels sprouts and say I can't forego this foodstuff, because it's 'just my opinion' that they are nasty.

You're emoting, you're not arguing. There is no rational argument contained in any of this.

I addressed your strange Brussels Sprouts equivocations in post #340 and received no response.

If things were objectively wrong, then it would be a brute fact of the universe.

In which case morality would exist even if no people existed, which is absurd. Your house is built on the foundation of a strawman, of morality divorced from people.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm pretty certain they aren't getting a nice warm glow in helping someone less fortunate.

Why do you believe they don't get a good feeling from passing food from one bat to another?

Do you know why we're generally monogamous? And morally speaking, sleeping with multiple partners is frowned upon? It's because our species is sexually dimorphic. That is, there's not a lot of difference in size between male and female. Sexually dimorphic species are invariably monogamous and those that are not will generally have multiple partners (mostly a single male with multiple females).

In sexually dimorphic species, both male and female will generally help out in rearing offspring whereas the opposite is mostly true in those species that aren't. In those species you will also see a lot of fighting between males to earn the right to mate with as many females as he wants.

I see a correlation, not a causation here. How does being a similar size cause monogamy?

The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky once wrote that “nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.” There is a tendency in the literature to draw a few long bows and look for evolutionary answers to questions that might better be explained by psychology or sociobiology - but it's amazing to think about why we do certain things and how we act in certain circumstances when viewed through the evolutionary lens.

Evolution tells us the history of how psychology developed in creatures.

 

[zippy2006]

If you have an argument that shows rape to be wrong then it wouldn't be merely subjective, would it?

Then nothing is subjective.

Which Godfather did you prefer? And was there an argument you might use to put forward your opinion? Based on objective facts about the movies we can discuss? You can then declare one of them to be objectively better.

Do you think that's a reasonable position?

I said, "If you have an argument that shows rape to be wrong..."

You apparently erroneously took that to mean, "If you are able to offer an argument against rape..."

That's not what I said.

 

[zippy2006]

Apparently many here think it is coherent for someone to have an argument they believe shows slavery to be wrong, and at the same time believe that it is impossible to objectively know that slavery is wrong. That is very odd.

If you believe slavery is wrong, why is that? Do you have a good reason for your belief (a sound argument)? If so, then it is objectively wrong and can be demonstrated via the argument. If not, your belief that slavery is wrong is irrational.

 

[Bradskii]

Why do you believe they don't get a good feeling from passing food from one bat to another?

If you think that bats are sufficiently developed to think morally then go for it. Me? I go instinctive. Genetic dice etc.

I see a correlation, not a causation here. How does being a similar size cause monogamy?

And yes, it's a correlation. It's the way things turned out. But what it causes is a feeling that 'this is the way things should be'. If the genetic dice had rolled differently then we'd think that pairing off for life was somehow wrong.

Evolution tells us the history of how psychology developed in creatures.

It tells us how psychology also developed.

 

[Ken-1122]

And they mean that it is objectively wrong: wrong for everyone and able to be known to be wrong.

I doubt most people not involved in these type of discussions are even aware of the difference between objective vs subjective.

Or to use your definition, "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions."

Do you agree when someone says something is wrong, it is also their opinion that it is wrong?

The tree in your front lawn comes from your mind, ask any neuroscientist.

No. The tree did not come from my mind, it is not a figment of my imagination, it was physically planted and is a part of the physical world; not just a part of my mental thoughts like morality. Unlike morality, the existence of the tree is objective.

If an argument about fairness can show an act to be wrong, then can't it be known to be wrong via fairness, and isn't it then objective?

No; fairness is completely subjective; which is why nobody agrees on what’s fair in most cases

2+2=4 is something known by the mind, and it can be shown to be true through the concept of addition. Since it can be shown to be true, it is objective.

True! Unlike fairness, addition is objective; which is why everybody agrees 2+2=4 it can be demonstrated as true.

Okay, I suppose I was thinking of more authoritative sources, like philosophical or scientific authorities.

Naaw a simple definition of the terms is all that is needed.

 

[Bradskii]

I said, "If you have an argument that shows rape to be wrong..."

You apparently erroneously took that to mean, "If you are able to offer an argument against rape..."

That's not what I said.

What? If I am able to offer an argument against rape then... I have an argument that shows rape to be wrong.

What on earth would the first phrase mean other than that? That I can offer an argument against it but not one that shows it to be wrong?

That's bizarre.

And hey...which Godfather film is the better?

 

[zippy2006]

Do you agree when someone says something is wrong, it is also their opinion that it is wrong?

Sure, just like it's my opinion that 2+2=4.

No. The tree did not come from my mind, it is not a figment of my imagination, it was physically planted and is a part of the physical world; not just a part of my mental thoughts like morality. Unlike morality, the existence of the tree is objective.

It is an objective reality mediated by your mind. You have no access to the tree apart from your mind, and for all you know, it could be a robust hallucination.

No; fairness is completely subjective; which is why nobody agrees on what’s fair in most cases

If it is completely subjective, then how in the world is it going to help you convince someone? You brought up fairness just a minute ago in a sentence where you were telling me that fairness is what you use to convince other people.

Naaw a simple definition of the terms is all that is needed.

I gave some authoritative sources in my OP that disagree with your sources.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you think that bats are sufficiently developed to think morally then go for it. Me? I go instinctive. Genetic dice etc.

Yeah, instinctive. "Giving food feel good, me give food now" The same way we scratch an itch because scratching itches feels good. The bats aren't thinking about what the future holds for batkind if they share.

And yes, it's a correlation. It's the way things turned out. But what it causes is a feeling that 'this is the way things should be'. If the genetic dice had rolled differently then we'd think that pairing off for life was somehow wrong.

Eh, this is so far off the rails I don't see a need to follow it. Just notice that it's a feeling that drives us to think it's good, and I'm satisfied.

It tells us how psychology also developed.

Okay. We can also explain how biology works using chemistry and we can explain how chemistry works using physics and we can explain how physics works using math. So what?

 

[zippy2006]

What? If I am able to offer an argument against rape then... I have an argument that shows rape to be wrong.

What on earth would the first phrase mean other than that? That I can offer an argument against it but not one that shows it to be wrong?

That's bizarre.

And hey...which Godfather film is the better?

Bradskii, if you want to dabble in philosophy you have to learn to distinguish property from merchandise, and arguments from demonstrations. If you can show rape to be wrong then you've got a demonstration. If you think it's wrong but you can't show it then you have a (crappy) argument.

 

[stevevw]

Tell that to the beavers who instinctively carry out the behaviour of dam building even when they have been raised in isolation never been exposed to dams or dam building.

I don't think building dams is morally good or bad and I don't think animals have morals. Nevertheless it doesnt matter as dam building or any survival behaviour says nothing about why they"ought" to behave that way.

Once again evolution is just a description of something and not a prescription. You mayt say its good that bats share food but bats sharing food doesnt equate to being morally good. According to the experts this is just a survival extinct.

You are assuming that it is objectively right or wrong. I've been very clear that I do not agree with that position.

But you used evolution to account for why people act morally. So you are the one assuming morality by evolution says something about what is actually right and wrong.

Otherwise it is as I said not really about moral right and wrong but survival or preferences for example "I prefer you not act that way" which says nothing about moral right and wrong.

And we certainly never see any behaviours that are generally viewed as morally bad being committed by people who only seek to improve their own personal gain, do we? Absolutely not!

Not sure what you meant by this, whether its sarcasism. Maybe I think.

Since subjectivity is what you get when someone just declares something to be the case, then even if there was a God who said, "This is morally good, that is morally bad," then they would still be subjective laws of morality.

No because God is not subject to moral laws, He is the moral law. He is the moral values that make up the law such as Love, Kindness, Fairness, Justice, Generousity ect.
God is the ultimate stopping point for what is good so if he was subject to the moral law then He could not be the ultimate stoppoing point and not God.

I never said there was.

All I've said is that evolution can explain why we have certain moral views in a way that does not require objective morals to exist.

But if evolution is not really about moral right and wrong then it explains nothing about morality in any true sense of the world beyond humans. If thats the case then it explains nothing about morality full stop.

But all too often it is. We see vampire bats sharing food to aid in the survival of others - others who, in the future, may return the favour and share food back when it is needed. And given that we humans live in complex social groups and require the efforts of others (how many people could live a solitary, self-sufficient lifestyle, after all?), developing a system of morality to make living in those social groups easier is certainly going to make survival easier, isn't it?

Are you honestly saying that Bats share food because its morally good. As mentioned animals don't have morals and sharing food or humans helping each other out according to evolutionists is about survival, helping that species genes make it to the next generation.

Otherwise how can we explain how animals will kill each other for food, often in horrifiec and inhuman ways, how species will kill their own babies for survival and competition ect. But once again al this says nothing about why anyone ought to act a certain way. Who says that the survival of a species is good, who says that Bats sharing food is good.

This is circular reasoning. If morality is subjective, then our reaction to it is indeed subjective, and the lived reaction to it is subjective.

Not if the reaction and lived morality or the moral value that applies to the situation is one particular moral rather than any moral value.

If there was no ultimate moral truth then any subjective moral truth could be lived like it was really true because there would be varying moral truths that all stand valid. So torturing babies for fun would be just one of many acceptable moral reactions/actions.

But the reality is you cannot have may truths and there is only one truth and that is what people often live like (they react like torturing baies is morally wrong) in a way that does not allow for any other moral position.

How many times have I said that people acting like their subjective opinion is objective doesn't actually make it objective? So many times I've lost count. Please don't make me say it again.
Like I said, please don't make me say it again.

Why when its the truth. As mentioned above if there is only one set of moral truth values then it would be expected that people live like that (they could not help but live like that). They may reject that truth on occassions but that truth will keep being reflected in peoples reactions.

The arguement for lived objective morality is not just based on quantitative evidence, the act itself (just because people live like objective morality doesnt = objective morality) but on qualitative evidence. Its because of the way they live like moral values have truth beyond them. Moral situations don't make sense without that objective moral truth.

Look at it this way when people claim something is morally wrong they have to be expressing a truth beyond themselves. Otherwise if was just a subjective view like "I think its wrong" or "In my opinion its wrong" then this has no weight and says nothing about it really being wrong. Its just like saying "I think chocolate cake is nice". That says nothing about it really being nice and when it comes to mroality people want to really make truth claims about what is right and wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii, if you want to dabble in philosophy you have to learn to distinguish property from merchandise, and arguments from demonstrations. If you can show rape to be wrong then you've got a demonstration. If you think it's wrong but you can't show it then you have a (crappy) argument.

Again, If I am able to offer an argument against rape then...I have an argument that shows rape to be wrong. Who on earth would say that they had an argument against something but couldn't show it? The argument itself is the reason and the explanation of that argument the demonstration.

It's as if you are saying that someone could have an argument but no explanation of that argument. That makes no sense.

And whenever you are ready with your Pacino preference...

 

[zippy2006]

Again, If I am able to offer an argument against rape then...I have an argument that shows rape to be wrong. Who on earth would say that they had an argument against something but couldn't show it? The argument itself is the reason and the explanation of that argument the demonstration.

It's as if you are saying that someone could have an argument but no explanation of that argument. That makes no sense.

1. Do you believe rape is wrong?
2. Do you have an argument against rape?
3. Is your argument sound?
4. Is rape objectively wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

1. Do you believe rape is wrong?
2. Do you have an argument against rape?
3. Is your argument sound?
4. Is rape objectively wrong?

I think you're stuck on the idea that if someone puts forward a sound argument that X is wrong then X is therefore objectively wrong (especially when everyone agrees with it). I can give you sound arguments for the trolley problem which will result in five people surviving and one being killed. Is sacrificing the one then objectively good?

You're a good Catholic so you'd say no. And not because of any argument either. One of your premises - mustn't take an innocent life, is actually the conclusion - mustn't take an innocent life. So you have no argument as such.

So how do we stand then? I've got a sound argument and you have what is not even an objective view but an absolute one and they differ. If the Church had decided, for arguments sake, that taking an innocent life could be considered in some circumstances then your view would be the same as mine.

So can your decision be objective right or wrong simply depending on what the church teaches? You'd have to put forward another argument to show that your initial premise (based on Church teaching) is correct. And I can give you a heads up here: that's not possible.

So whatever response you give, let me know the answer to the Godfather question as well. I want to know if your opinion, based on objective arguments, automatically leads to an objective fact.

 

[zippy2006]

I think you're stuck on the idea that if someone puts forward a sound argument that X is wrong then X is therefore objectively wrong...

Yes, I am stuck on that, mostly because I know what a sound argument is. If an argument is sound, then the conclusion is true. If an argument is an argument, then it is communicable (and accessible). Therefore, according to my definition of objectivity in post #3, the conclusion of a sound argument is objective.

But anyone who knows what a sound argument is already knew that.

I can give you sound arguments for the trolley problem which will result in five people surviving and one being killed. Is sacrificing the one then objectively good?

You're a good Catholic so you'd say no. And not because of any argument either. One of your premises - mustn't take an innocent life, is actually the conclusion - mustn't take an innocent life. So you have no argument as such.

If I didn't know better I would say you are recycling unrelated material from this post, where you are arguing with Orel in a different thread.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, I am stuck on that, mostly because I know what a sound argument is. If an argument is sound, then the conclusion is true.

If the premises are true then the argument is sound (assuming it's valid). So 'five lives are worth more than one'. That sounds like a premise that is true. But you might call it false and offer 'all lives have equal worth' and say that's true. And I'd disagree. So we both feel we have a sound argument yet they reach different conclusions.

You know you are right. But I know that I am.

So the Godfather? S'not a hard question but it has important implications. So whenever you're ready.