Is there Objective Morality?

[Tinker Grey]

I covered the poll here: Is there an absolute morality?

The numbers are misleading.

 

[stevevw]

I covered the poll here: Is there an absolute morality?

The numbers are misleading.

Not really. Your link is a forum with personal views on the survey which is hardly independent. Another survey was done in 2020 which had similar results but showed an increase in support for moral realism.

One of the comments is that perhaps realism is popular because there is more literature on it. If anything non-realism is more popular in the literature as because its the go to position for society and is pushed much more in a secular society.

I don't think there is any room for misinterpretation of the questions as they are short and without any qualification ie question14. Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism? Philosophers should already know the meanings of these ethical positions and so its a simple yes or no. We know that moral realism is the same as objective morality and anti-realism is about subjective morality. Its pretty straightforward.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No really. Your link is a forum with personal views on the survey which is hardly independent. Another survey was done in 2020 which had similar results but showed an increase in support for moral realism.

One of the comments is that perhaps realism is popular because there is more literature on it. If anything non-realism is more popular in the literature as because its the go to position for society and is pushed much more in a secular society.

I don't think there is any room for misinterpretation of the questions as they are short and without any qualification ie question14. Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism? Philosophers should already know the meanings of these ethical positions and so its a simple yes or no. We know that moral realism is the same as objective morality and anti-realism is about subjective morality. Its pretty straightforward.

Post links, please

 

[stevevw]

Post links, please

The article you linked is a question and answer forum and as it states anyone can answer the questions there is no qualification in the answers but rather personal opinion

The 2020 survey is here https://philarchive.org/archive/BOUPOP-3

As far as subjective morality being more prevalent in literature in secular society you only have to take a quick look at the policies that represent society. Equality, non-discrimination, tolerance for other peoples and cultures moral views, there is no truth, we all have our own truth, you have your opinion I have mine.

Its prevalent throughout the media, on social media, movies, everywhere you look it’s all about there not being any moral truths. In fact morality has been taken out of the picture altogether. It’s all about wants, desires and preferences which are subjective.

‘Western’ morality highlights an individual's right of choice with utilitarian consideration, rather than any enforced social demand of deontological concern.
(PDF) Morality (East and West): Cultural Concerns

Modern moral theories are rather subjective in character and hence lack the strong commitments of virtue ethical theories concerning their objective basis, as well as their claims regarding elitism and the devaluation of the moral common sense.
Modern Morality and Ancient Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Tinker Grey]

The article you linked is a question and answer forum and as it states anyone can answer the questions there is no qualification in the answers but rather personal opinion

The 2020 survey is here https://philarchive.org/archive/BOUPOP-3

As far as subjective morality being more prevalent in literature in secular society you only have to take a quick look at the policies that represent society. Equality, non-discrimination, tolerance for other peoples and cultures moral views, there is no truth, we all have our own truth, you have your opinion I have mine.

Its prevalent throughout the media, on social media, movies, everywhere you look it’s all about there not being any moral truths. In fact morality has been taken out of the picture altogether. It’s all about wants, desires and preferences which are subjective.

‘Western’ morality highlights an individual's right of choice with utilitarian consideration, rather than any enforced social demand of deontological concern.
(PDF) Morality (East and West): Cultural Concerns

Modern moral theories are rather subjective in character and hence lack the strong commitments of virtue ethical theories concerning their objective basis, as well as their claims regarding elitism and the devaluation of the moral common sense.
Modern Morality and Ancient Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I appreciate you providing the link.

1st: The link I provided explained why the first survey was inadequate for distinguishing what philosophers really believe.
2nd: The link you provided isn't any better. It looks like a couple of students surveying the field. It looks like an admirable attempt (assuming undergrad level). But having a question like:

Moral Meta-ethics

• Moral realism
• Moral anti-realism
• Other

... hardly teases out the nuances of philosophic position.

In short, your source sucks.

 

[stevevw]

I appreciate you providing the link.

1st: The link I provided explained why the first survey was inadequate for distinguishing what philosophers really believe.

Like I said the link you provided is a blog article with personal opinions. As the article mentions anyone can answer the questions so its not an academic qualified opinion.

2nd: The link you provided isn't any better. It looks like a couple of students surveying the field. It looks like an admirable attempt (assuming undergrad level).

lol, one of the authors of both studies is actually David Chalmers world famous professor of philosophy and Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. He also came up with the idea of the "hard problem of consciousness."

So if you want to use someone at a student level to say that the authors don't know what they are talking about then surely a professor of philosophy who teaches the subject at University level would know what they are talking about.

But having a question like:

Moral Meta-ethics

• Moral realism
• Moral anti-realism
• Other

... hardly teases out the nuances of philosophic position.

In short, your source sucks.

The paper goes into detail about why the questions are short as it minimizes ambiguity. This is how most surveys are done ie referendums ect. The 2020 paper goes into detail about how they addressed bias and correlated the findings. I would think someone of Chalmers level of qualification that he was aware of any issues that may skew the findings and when found as the paper states were excluded from the results.

 

[stevevw]

62.1% is not a vast majority. I know you have some crazy math going on in your head, but even that is wrong. Let me spell it out for you.

62.1% of philosophers believe moral realism is true.
Moral realism is not true.
62.1% of moral philosophers believe something that is not true.
The other 37.9% are irrelevant.

If we want to use logic then you have no evidence for premise 2 so your conclusion is false.

None of those things are true.

Is that your opinion or belief or an objective claim. You have just proven what I said by claiming none of what I said is true. That’s an objective claim that is not verifiable so that’s irrational, contradictory to your own method of proving things true or false and impractical as it cannot apply.

To be moral subjectivists only because they are of the view that individuals can decide what is right or wrong for themselves, and others cannot morally judge them because there is no moral law to which individuals are subject. But such a proposition is self-defeating: if there is no moral law to which individuals are subject, it is a free-for-all; the moral judgment of others cannot itself be morally critiqued.

While such primacy must have been derived from the equal moral worth of all individuals, it in fact renders all of them equally worthless unless there are limits to everyone’s autonomy. Those limits, if conceded, however, constitute an elaborate set of moral norms and render their adherents indistinguishable from avowed moral realists.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=sol_research

Moral Subjectivism has some very uncomfortable consequences:
1. If Moral Subjectivism is correct, then two individuals may have different moral judgments on the same situation and both of them may be right. Thus, Subjectivism fails to explain what is right and wrong.

2. If Moral Subjectivism is correct, then a person cannot be wrong in their moral judgments. If my moral judgments reflect just my feelings and dispositions, then I cannot be mistaken in my moral judgments. After all, I am best familiar with my feelings. Yet, I can think of a few cases in which I have been wrong in my judgments because of my feelings and emotions. Thus, Subjectivism leads us to inconsistent and contradictory judgments.

3. Moral Subjectivism prevents us from having a rational discussion on ethical issues. When people are led by their feelings there is very little communication on ethical issues.

4. Moral Subjectivism is an inconsistent ethical theory. One cannot live one’s life as a moral subjectivist. Our interactions with other people are inevitable and require some common understanding of what is right and what is wrong.
what are the main problems with moral subjectivism? | Science homework help.

I would say that qualified to be self-defeating, contradictory and impracticle to apply.

If the truth or falsity of morality is determined by individual subjectivity then the beliefs on an individual level can never be labelled as morally wrong because the truth of moral statements are derived by reference to individual opinion. Truth is defined subjectively and not objectively by an independent moral code.

1. Subjectivists argue there is no objective “truth” in the world about morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion/feelings, and opinions/feelings vary from person to person.
2. Individual subjective opinion/feelings can never be labelled as morally wrong.
3. Subjective moral opinions/feelings are objectively false when disagreeing with someone about moral right and wrong in the world.
4. Therefore it makes no sense to disagree subjectively with someone about moral right and wrong.
5. Therefore any claims about others being morally wrong in the world during moral disagreements are contradictory to subjectivism as they are making objective claims.
6. Therefore any moral claims about others being morally wrong in the world are impractical to apply.
7. Therefore any arguments about moral claims of others being morally wrong in the world are self-defeating as this is an objective claim while arguing for subjectivism.

This can be summed up here
1) If subjectivism were true then there would be no genuine moral disagreement
2) There is genuine moral disagreement
3) Moral subjectivism is not true.

 

[Moral Orel]

If we want to use logic then you have no evidence for premise 2 so your conclusion is false.

No, I already proved it is impossible to justify a moral statement. My proof stands uncontested.

Is that your opinion or belief or an objective claim. You have just proven what I said by claiming none of what I said is true. That’s an objective claim that is not verifiable so that’s irrational, contradictory to your own method of proving things true or false and impractical as it cannot apply.

It is verifiable, so this is all bunk.

To be moral subjectivists only because they are of the view that individuals can decide what is right or wrong for themselves, and others cannot morally judge them because there is no moral law to which individuals are subject. But such a proposition is self-defeating: if there is no moral law to which individuals are subject, it is a free-for-all; the moral judgment of others cannot itself be morally critiqued.

While such primacy must have been derived from the equal moral worth of all individuals, it in fact renders all of them equally worthless unless there are limits to everyone’s autonomy. Those limits, if conceded, however, constitute an elaborate set of moral norms and render their adherents indistinguishable from avowed moral realists.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4088&context=sol_research

Moral Subjectivism has some very uncomfortable consequences:
1. If Moral Subjectivism is correct, then two individuals may have different moral judgments on the same situation and both of them may be right. Thus, Subjectivism fails to explain what is right and wrong.

2. If Moral Subjectivism is correct, then a person cannot be wrong in their moral judgments. If my moral judgments reflect just my feelings and dispositions, then I cannot be mistaken in my moral judgments. After all, I am best familiar with my feelings. Yet, I can think of a few cases in which I have been wrong in my judgments because of my feelings and emotions. Thus, Subjectivism leads us to inconsistent and contradictory judgments.

3. Moral Subjectivism prevents us from having a rational discussion on ethical issues. When people are led by their feelings there is very little communication on ethical issues.

4. Moral Subjectivism is an inconsistent ethical theory. One cannot live one’s life as a moral subjectivist. Our interactions with other people are inevitable and require some common understanding of what is right and what is wrong.
what are the main problems with moral subjectivism? | Science homework help.

I would say that qualified to be self-defeating, contradictory and impracticle to apply.

If the truth or falsity of morality is determined by individual subjectivity then the beliefs on an individual level can never be labelled as morally wrong because the truth of moral statements are derived by reference to individual opinion. Truth is defined subjectively and not objectively by an independent moral code.

1. Subjectivists argue there is no objective “truth” in the world about morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion/feelings, and opinions/feelings vary from person to person.
2. Individual subjective opinion/feelings can never be labelled as morally wrong.
3. Subjective moral opinions/feelings are objectively false when disagreeing with someone about moral right and wrong in the world.
4. Therefore it makes no sense to disagree subjectively with someone about moral right and wrong.
5. Therefore any claims about others being morally wrong in the world during moral disagreements are contradictory to subjectivism as they are making objective claims.
6. Therefore any moral claims about others being morally wrong in the world are impractical to apply.
7. Therefore any arguments about moral claims of others being morally wrong in the world are self-defeating as this is an objective claim while arguing for subjectivism.

This can be summed up here
1) If subjectivism were true then there would be no genuine moral disagreement
2) There is genuine moral disagreement
3) Moral subjectivism is not true.

You don't even understand what moral subjectivity claims, so this is all bunk.

 

[stevevw]

When it comes to other things, though, the difference is far greater than a 62% for, 26% against.

Do we see 26% of astronomers against a heliocentric universe? Or a flat earth? Do we see 26% of biologists saying evolution isn't real?

No. When it comes to morality, the split is far closer to being an even split than it is for things that can actually be objectively shown.

You know I have addressed this objection several times which shows you also ignore my replies. As mentioned already most examples you can give about science and other facts can also be applied to moral facts.

We may not see great disagreement about a heliocentric universe and flat earth today but we did in the past and there was similar splits that moral realism show today. So it follows that we could gain a bigger majority of agreement over moral realism in the future just like we did with your examples.

Considering that there has been an increase in support even over a 10 year period between surveys this shows that we may be able to enjoy similar levels of support that a heliocentric universe has in the future.

Even today there is a similar split to realism with some scientific issues like consciousnes, mind/body relationship, many issues in psychology like "what is gender", how life and the universe began. Even with big issues like evolution and gravity. Gravity has changed from Newtons law being a fact to Einsteins relativity being a fact and now relativity is being question with quantum physics and quantum gravity.

So there are similarities between science facts and moral facts in how they can have minimal support and grow to have majority spport and during that timeline there will be various % of support.

It may be that moral facts are a different kind of fact or law that we don't fully understand today. Just like we didn't fully understand a heliocentric universe or gravity and then support changed towards the so called facts we have today with greater and greater % of support.

 

[stevevw]

No, I already proved it is impossible to justify a moral statement. My proof stands uncontested.

It is verifiable, so this is all bunk.

But it doesn't follow that because moral statements cannot be justified that there is no objective morals. Just like we cannot say God is false because there is no evidence.

So are you making an objective claim or not about what morality is or is not, that moral realism is false. Are you saying that logic objectively proves there are no objective morals. Are you making a judgement call and criticizing me for being wrong about moral realism.

You don't even understand what moral subjectivity claims, so this is all bunk.

I thought you said morality is equivalent to our feelings about the issue and therefore they cannot be morally right or wrong.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's a perfect analogy.

Another thought came to mind about your "breaking glass analogy". If we apply this to morality we know that intention is important for whether an act is wrong or not. So if we have an action like breaking a glass but instead its say breaking a person as in assaulting them how do you tell if the action is right or wrong.

Surely just the act of breaking a glass/person cannot tell this. That will only be a fact about the physical act happening. But what about the moral dimension. Is there any difference between breaking a glass and breaking a person.

 

[zippy2006]

So your analogy doesn't really apply, does it?

And how do you decide which is the most important bit of information without resorting to a subjective opinion?

The ball analogy was yours; and no one said anything about "the most important bit of information."

The existence of shades of grey does not preclude the existence of meaningful statements.

When people use that phrase they are often refusing to give meaningful answers.

 

[Kylie]

You know I have addressed this objection several times which shows you also ignore my replies. As mentioned already most examples you can give about science and other facts can also be applied to moral facts.

We may not see great disagreement about a heliocentric universe and flat earth today but we did in the past and there was similar splits that moral realism show today. So it follows that we could gain a bigger majority of agreement over moral realism in the future just like we did with your examples.

Considering that there has been an increase in support even over a 10 year period between surveys this shows that we may be able to enjoy similar levels of support that a heliocentric universe has in the future.

Even today there is a similar split to realism with some scientific issues like consciousnes, mind/body relationship, many issues in psychology like "what is gender", how life and the universe began. Even with big issues like evolution and gravity. Gravity has changed from Newtons law being a fact to Einsteins relativity being a fact and now relativity is being question with quantum physics and quantum gravity.

So there are similarities between science facts and moral facts in how they can have minimal support and grow to have majority spport and during that timeline there will be various % of support.

It may be that moral facts are a different kind of fact or law that we don't fully understand today. Just like we didn't fully understand a heliocentric universe or gravity and then support changed towards the so called facts we have today with greater and greater % of support.

Once again you base your argument on the inflexible view that you MUST be right.

 

[Kylie]

The ball analogy was yours

Which you changed into a form that would most likely tell us very little useful information, unlike mine.

and no one said anything about "the most important bit of information."

Not directly.

But you eliminated all shades of grey when you said, "They cannot give excuses about "shades of grey" in post 2575.

If you're going to make everything black and white, then you need to specify what counts as white, and then we colour everything else black.

When people use that phrase they are often refusing to give meaningful answers.

Hardly. I can say that I prefer science fiction, but if that isn't available, I don't mind a nice comedy. And if I can't get either of those, then an action movie will do. Those are shades of grey, since I give them different values. Indeed, this adds MORE meaning than if it was a black and white answer, since in that case, all of these would be coloured white, and if I asked you to hire a movie from the video store (I'm showing my age, I used to rent actual VHS tapes when I was a kid), you'd have to get all three genres to be sure of getting my preferred choice. But by assigning them shades of grey instead, I can create a hierarchy, allowing you to make a much more informed choice.

 

[stevevw]

Once again you base your argument on the inflexible view that you MUST be right.

No I base it on facts. It is a fact that support for objective scientific facts vary from minimal support to majority support throughout history. So your argument is false and I have pointed this out several times.

 

[zippy2006]

Which you changed into a form that would most likely tell us very little useful information, unlike mine.

No, you gave a form that gave very little information. The form I changed it into gave exactly 500,000 times more information than your form. This is not coincidental.

Not directly.

But you eliminated all shades of grey when you said, "They cannot give excuses about "shades of grey" in post 2575.

If you're going to make everything black and white, then you need to specify what counts as white, and then we colour everything else black.

My point is and has always been about information, not "important information." Contradictory pairs are useful in forcing vague, slippery posters to give actual information instead of non-information. None of this has anything to do with what is important. "Rape is not always wrong" contains information. "There are lots of shades of grey with rape" does not contain any information in the CF contexts it is used. It is pure evasion: an attempt to avoid saying anything so that one may not have to face the painful reality of being held responsible for their positions.

Hardly. I can say that I prefer science fiction, but if that isn't available, I don't mind a nice comedy. And if I can't get either of those, then an action movie will do. Those are shades of grey,...

No, that is an informative ranking of three different genres of movies. There is nothing vague about it.

...since I give them different values. Indeed, this adds MORE meaning than if it was a black and white answer, since in that case, all of these would be coloured white, and if I asked you to hire a movie from the video store (I'm showing my age, I used to rent actual VHS tapes when I was a kid), you'd have to get all three genres to be sure of getting my preferred choice. But by assigning them shades of grey instead, I can create a hierarchy, allowing you to make a much more informed choice.

When you and others use the term "shades of grey" you do it precisely to avoid giving information, such as a hierarchical scheme. When it comes to rape you don't give the various conditions under which it is permissible and impermissible. You just evade with "shades of grey," which effectively means, "this is so complicated and nuanced, and it is so difficult to tell one shade from another, that it falls into the realm of pure subjectivity and cannot even be discussed." It is a gag-order on yourself. The most straightforward way to get such people to say anything informative at all is to use contradictory pairs.

 

[Kylie]

No I base it on facts. It is a fact that support for objective scientific facts vary from minimal support to majority support throughout history. So your argument is false and I have pointed this out several times.

I have pointed out many times in this thread that your arguments are based on an apparent inability to comprehend a subjective morality. All of that stuff that boils down to, "But if morality is subjective, then how do we tell what is objectively right and wrong?" stuff. You have never presented any actual facts to support your position, merely that kind of flawed argument.

 

[Kylie]

No, you gave a form that gave very little information. The form I changed it into gave exactly 500,000 times more information than your form. This is not coincidental.

HA!

My form eliminates fully half the possible options no matter what the answer is.

Your form has a one in a million chance of eliminating all but one of the options - but if it doesn't, then it does practically nothing.

My point is and has always been about information, not "important information." Contradictory pairs are useful in forcing vague, slippery posters to give actual information instead of non-information. None of this has anything to do with what is important. "Rape is not always wrong" contains information. "There are lots of shades of grey with rape" does not contain any information in the CF contexts it is used. It is pure evasion: an attempt to avoid saying anything so that one may not have to face the painful reality of being held responsible for their positions.

...

No, that is an informative ranking of three different genres of movies. There is nothing vague about it.

Ah, so you start out by saying that shades of grey contain no information, and then agree with me that shades of grey can contain useful information.

Make up your mind.

When you and others use the term "shades of grey" you do it precisely to avoid giving information, such as a hierarchical scheme. When it comes to rape you don't give the various conditions under which it is permissible and impermissible. You just evade with "shades of grey," which effectively means, "this is so complicated and nuanced, and it is so difficult to tell one shade from another, that it falls into the realm of pure subjectivity and cannot even be discussed." It is a gag-order on yourself. The most straightforward way to get such people to say anything informative at all is to use contradictory pairs.

The reason that I don't give specifics about the shades of grey is because I can't. What the shades of grey are depend entirely on the circumstances - who the victim is, and how they are able to react to it. Hence my conclusion that it's all SUBJECTIVE.

 

[zippy2006]

HA!

My form eliminates fully half the possible options no matter what the answer is.

Your form has a one in a million chance of eliminating all but one of the options - but if it doesn't, then it does practically nothing.

Go read post #2584 and refresh your memory.

The reason that I don't give specifics about the shades of grey is because I can't. What the shades of grey are depend entirely on the circumstances - who the victim is, and how they are able to react to it. Hence my conclusion that it's all SUBJECTIVE.

Case in point.

 

[Moral Orel]

Case in point.

What does QED stand for and what does it mean? I forget.