Objective morality, can it exist? Sort of....

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Ok, so as long time member but an infrequent poster, I want to write a little preface before this post. I don't consider myself Christian though I grew up in a culture steeped in the Christian tradition and its values. I don't consider myself anti-Christian, but I take issue with a few things that Christians sometimes advocate for. I respect a person's right to choose their faith or lack of except when that faith meets in the "public square" and those without faith (or of a different faith) are asked to make special considerations based on one particular faith alone.

This topic is about morality which hits home for most Christians. it's hard to have this discussion without inadvertently questioning the foundation of Christain faith and belief, at least for most people who identify as Christian. It isn't my goal to invalidate Christianity, though morality is so intertwined in Christian faith and for some, one of the main reasons for believing in god in the first place. Thus, this will be a sensitive topic and I'll do my best not to insult those of the Christin faith, but if you are a Christian who is easily offended, may I suggest you look at other topics.

Respectfully,

E4E1


It is my assertion that all morality is subjective, however, morality can be objective within a value framework.

Let me try with an analogy.

How tall are you?

Now, are you objectively that tall?

Assuming that you give your answer in a formally recognized measurement like the Imperial or Metric system (just to name 2), the answer is YES! After all, if when you stand beside a ruler that is graduated like every other ruler and you measure 6' tall, you are objectively 6' tall relative to the system of measurement.

But are these systems themselves objective? Of course not. The lines on a ruler aren't an objective standard that exists independently of us. We created it, subjectively. Further, the distances we chose to represent inches, feet, yards, and mile weren't chosen at random or arbitrarily, they were chosen to achieve real-world goals (making the point that subjectively does not mean random or arbitrary).

The point being is that it is possible for objectivity to exist within a subjective framework.

A foot is objectively a foot. If a being on the other side of the universe refers to a foot as something other than the distance we all recognize, then objectively the being is not talking about the imperial system of measurement.

I hope that makes sense. I also think this is where a lot of confusion comes from. We all know good from bad and the idea that we need to instructed what is good and bad, to me is silly.

Take the proposition, vanilla ice cream is is better than chocolate. One would struggle to find a statement more subjective than that!

But if I said, eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of broken glass. If I said Vanilla is better, is that just my opinion?

Well, that depends, if we agree that most people value their lives, within the context of that value, it is objectively true that eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of glass. I don't need to be told to know that it's true.

And so....

All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand. Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.

So, when it comes to deciding what is morally right and what is morally wrong, a subject (a person) must apply their subjective valuation of the issue before they can decide where they stand. For example, if a person places a high value on the sanctity of marriage, they will probably consider adultery to be immoral because it violates the sanctity of marriage. A person who places a low value on telling the truth might not see lying as immoral.

For morality to be objective, it must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue. I can’t think of any moral issue that meets those requirements.

For example, if it was objectively true that lying is always immoral, and telling the truth is always moral, then all the people who sought to hide Jews from the Germans during WWII acted immorally whenever they lied to German authorities as to the whereabouts of any Jews the Germans sought. Clearly, however, we would understand it to have been immoral for people to give up the locations of Jewish families in hiding if those people were, in fact, trying to hide and protect those Jewish families. So it cannot be true that it is objectively immoral to lie.

Now, it’s possible to objectively evaluate morality itself, but that’s not the same as morality being objective.

So how do we determine what is right?

First, let me say that morality is not an individual pursuit. That is, people can have ideas about what they think morality should be, but there is no such thing as "individual morality". Just as there is no such thing as a married bachelor. Let's use a sports analogy here. In the game of Soccer, it is considered wrong for anyone but the goalie to use their hands. What if one person picked up the ball and carried it to the other end ignoring all the rules and then proclaimed that he had his own interpretation of the rules?

What do you think would happen to that player?

Similarly, if a ran a store and you came in and asked for a 10lb roast and I handed you a 1lb roast and charged you the 10lb price, you'd rightly be pretty upset. If I said my "personal standard of measurement" was different than the commonly accepted standard, what do you think might happen?

Lastly, what would you say to a person who commits a heinous crime and then simply proclaims that their standard of right and wrong is their own and therefore you can't judge them, what do we do with these kinds of people?

So what we're left with is a framework that looks like this:

Values--->Morality--->Ethics.

Thus it is what we value that lays the foundation for what we believe is right and wrong. Morality is a social construct where people come together and share their ideas about what is right and wrong based on the values they hold.

If we have been wrong about morality in the past, and of course we have, it's because we lacked information and understanding. The things we believed were wrong and that in turn lead to ideas and beliefs that resulted in values that did not live up to the standards we create for ourselves.

For example, the Constitution of the United States says "All men are created equal", but that's not how it worked in practice is it? Why? Because our beliefs and understanding lead to ideas that weren't consistent with our values.

There is more and I suspect that some of you will point out what you see to be flaws in my thinking and I look forward to filling in the gaps in my responses to any challenges I get.

-Cheers
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    49.5 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Thus it is what we value that lays the foundation for what we believe is right and wrong. Morality is a social construct where people come together and share their ideas about what is right and wrong based on the values they hold.

The question, then, is whether some values are objectively higher than others. For example, most people would agree that life is a higher value than luxurious comfort, and they will be more intent on sustaining their life than on sustaining luxurious comfort. To say that all values are immeasurably subjective would be to say that life is not a higher value than luxurious comfort, which would be absurd.
 
Upvote 0

Rachel20

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2020
1,954
1,443
STX
✟58,109.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So what we're left with is a framework that looks like this:

Values--->Morality--->Ethics.

Thus it is what we value that lays the foundation for what we believe is right and wrong.

Maybe what we value simply coincides with what is right and wrong, but not necessarily the basis for it? Certainly the golden rule "do unto others as we would have them do to us" assumes some things are universally valued. But why would utility-based reasoning necessarily be the same thing as moral-based reasoning? We see utility-based reasoning in the garden before the knowledge of good and evil even came to man -

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit..." Gen 3:6

FYI I'm not hard-selling this, just throwing it out there! I enjoyed reading your thoughts on it.
 
Upvote 0

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
The question, then, is whether some values are objectively higher than others.

Let me ask you, do you think that you can say, without a doubt that lung cancer is worse than toe fungus even though we don't have an objective standard by which to judge illnesses?

How might you judge one over the other then? Perhaps you judge it based on the amount of suffereing one causes and because (I assume) you value freedom from suffereing (like most people) that value leads you to conclude that lung cancer is worse even though you lack an objective way to measure.

Similarly, we can judge actions based on the real, tangible and objective expereinces of the human body. Now, I should point out that if this thread goes on long enough, someone will point out that what one person calls suffereing another person might call pleasure. To this I would say, it is possible to subjectivly expereince pleasure while objectiving experinceing harm. For example, let's say doing meth makes you feel good, the fact that it makes you feel good does not change the fact that you are objectivly harming yourself.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Let me ask you, do you think that you can say, without a doubt that lung cancer is worse than toe fungus even though we don't have an objective standard by which to judge illnesses?

I think I could say that, and I think most everyone would agree with me, and I think that means that there must be an objective standard by which illnesses are judged and by which these two illnesses are being judged. If there is no such standard then it is a very, very strange coincidence that everyone agrees that lung cancer is worse.

How might you judge one over the other then? Perhaps you judge it based on the amount of suffereing one causes and because (I assume) you value freedom from suffereing (like most people) that value leads you to conclude that lung cancer is worse even though you lack an objective way to measure.

Sure, the evil of suffering and the goodness of life are going to be part of that objective standard.

Similarly, we can judge actions based on the real, tangible and objective expereinces of the human body. Now, I should point out that if this thread goes on long enough, someone will point out that what one person calls suffereing another person might call pleasure. To this I would say, it is possible to subjectivly expereince pleasure while objectiving experinceing harm. For example, let's say doing meth makes you feel good, the fact that it makes you feel good does not change the fact that you are objectivly harming yourself.

Sure. What are your definitions of objective and subjective?
 
Upvote 0

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Maybe what we value simply coincides with what is right and wrong, but not necessarily the basis for it?

If you mean, do we all value freedom from suffering by coincidence or because of our tangible experiences of reality? I'd say reality, given that in the history of humans on this planet, the 10's of billions of people that have ever lived have shared similar experiences of suffering and the desire to avoid it when possible.


Certainly the golden rule "do unto others as we would have them do to us" assumes some things are universally valued.

The golden rule arises out of our desire to realize our shared values. I don't think it's an assumption, I think it's a pragmatic statement based on real and tangible experiences of billions of human beings.

But why would utility-based reasoning necessarily be the same thing as moral-based reasoning?

I guess that depends on what you mean when you say "utility".

I'd argue that values are a form of utility and that morality is based on values.

My question to you in return is, is something good because it's commanded by god, or is it good because of the positive outcomes it produces?

In other words, if god says that charity is good, why is it good? What about it makes it good? Could god declare that charity is bad and it would, therefore, be bad?
 
Upvote 0

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Sure. What are your definitions of objective and subjective?

In the simplest of terms, subjective notions are those based on how we feel about them or how they make us feel, objective notions are those that are what they are independent of how we feel about them.

and I think that means that there must be an objective standard by which illnesses are judged

Re-read your phrasing that and I hope you can see the flaw.

Objects cannot value, only subjects.

Therefore there can be no objective standard without a subject to value it making it, by definition, subjective. Sicknesses are as a whole experienced as suffering to varying degrees (which is why we categorize them as "sicknesses", but there is no objective standard by which to judge cancer vs AIDS, we know that both cause high levels of suffering and because we value freedom from unnecessary suffering we can say they are bad, and indeed make value-laden judgments about what illnesses are worse than others. The point here is, we don't need to have strict objective notions about the illness to know that being ill is bad and not being ill is good.

Now, if I'm going to get technical, and I'll need to be as this conversation progresses, I would say that both actual and potential suffering and sickness is bad, and both actual and potential health, well-being and happiness are good. With the caveat that sometimes the human mind can enter a state of unhealthiness where people are driven to seek out things that cause subjective pleasure, but objective harm.

The point is, someone sooner or later will ask if a person gets drunk and is raped and awakens and doesn't remember anything, was it immoral to rape in this case? The answer is OF COURSE, because the abuser can't know they won't get caught, or get the victim pregnant or that they won't suffer a crisis of conscious later on. Hence BOTH actual and potential pain, sickness and suffering are bad.

I would say, that when we talk about what people experience as pain and pleasure assumes a healthy human mind and body.

OCD is an example, drug use another and Pica a condition where people eat non-foods (that are sometimes harmful) but provide a sense of pleasure. For example, eating toilet paper or corn starch or dirt is still another example.

To address one more objection I'm likely to get....

Someone also once said to me, "what if a rapist thinks rape is ok?" My answer was, do you really believe that any sane person thinks rape is ok? Imagine this thought experiment. Take 100 rapists and ask them if they want to be raped? Ask them if they want the people they care about raped, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the overwhelming majority will say no, the other two have serious mental issues and they aren't really the kinds of people we should be considering when we discuss what is and is not moral.

But what if they think it's ok for them to rape, just not others, I'd remind that person that morality is not something that individuals determine, morality is a social construct, just as marriage takes two people, morality takes 2 or more people.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
In the simplest of terms, subjective notions are those based on how we feel about them or how they make us feel, objective notions are those that are what they are independent of how we feel about them.

Okay, fair enough.

Re-read your phrasing that and I hope you can see the flaw.

Nope.

Objects cannot value, only subjects.

That's not true. All sorts of objects have value. Food, gold, cars, houses, and books are just a few objects that obviously have value. We even have an imperfect way to measure that value. It's called money.

Oddly enough, your statement is exactly backwards in the Judeo-Christian framework. Only objects have value; subjects have dignity. To assign a value to a subject would be to use them as a means to an end.

Therefore there can be no objective standard without a subject to value it making it, by definition, subjective. Sicknesses are as a whole experienced as suffering to varying degrees (which is why we categorize them as "sicknesses", but there is no objective standard by which to judge cancer vs AIDS, we know that both cause high levels of suffering and because we value freedom from unnecessary suffering we can say they are bad, and indeed make value-laden judgments about what illnesses are worse than others.

You seem to be committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. You keep asserting that values cannot be measured by anything without providing any argument.

The problem with your claim that all value is subjectively assigned is that value is very often grounded in objective realities. For example, water and rain are valuable because they provide life to various organisms. This isn't a bare subjective feeling, it is a fact of the natural world. This intrinsic value of water is going to persist whether or not there are human subjects to acknowledge it.

The point here is, we don't need to have strict objective notions about the illness to know that being ill is bad and not being ill is good.

How can you say that one thing is bad and another is good if you have no standard? Hint: the standard in this case is health, and it's plenty objective.
 
Upvote 0

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
All sorts of objects have value.

You misunderstood (and in fairness, I wasn't as clear as I could have been). I didn't say objects don't value, I said objects can't value (verb not noun) or said another way, objects can't do the valuing. A chair has utility, but the chair does not value its own utility, you and I do. A chair is an object we are subjects. The value relationship ALWAYS starts with a subject doing the valuing.

Oddly enough, your statement is exactly backwards in the Judeo-Christian framework. Only objects have value; subjects have dignity. To assign a value to a subject would be to use them as a means to an end.

I agree objects have value, my point is that an object can't have value independent of a subject to value it.

Imagine a universe where everyone is gone (the reason why is unimportant). What would the value of a chair be in that place?

The answer is, it wouldn't have any value.

You seem to be committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. You keep asserting that values cannot be measured by anything without providing any argument.

I didn't say values can't be measured?

Can you quote me? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

value is very often grounded in objective realities.

Agreed.

For example, water and rain are valuable because they provide life to various organisms. This isn't a bare subjective feeling, it is a fact of the natural world. This intrinsic value of water is going to persist whether or not there are human subjects to acknowledge it.

How is water valuable if no one, or more specifically, if there are no non-sentient beings to value it.

Value can only be measured relative to some desire or need.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You misunderstood (and in fairness, I wasn't as clear as I could have been). I didn't say objects don't value, I said objects can't value (verb not noun) or said another way, objects can't do the valuing. A chair has utility, but the chair does not value its own utility, you and I do. A chair is an object we are subjects. The value relationship ALWAYS starts with a subject doing the valuing.

Bah, sorry, I misread your sentence. I agree that objects do not themselves exercise the act of valuing.

I agree objects have value, my point is that an object can't have value independent of a subject to value it.

Imagine a universe where everyone is gone (the reason why is unimportant). What would the value of a chair be in that place?

The answer is, it wouldn't have any value.

I suppose it depends what you mean by "value." The value of many human artifacts, such as chairs, is defined relative to human beings, so a chair would not have value without human beings to use it. But not all valuable things are human artifacts.

How is water valuable if no one, or more specifically, if there are no non-sentient beings to value it.

No sentient beings? It would still have value in relation to the ecosystem.

Value can only be measured relative to some desire or need.

Let's try to construct your argument:

Therefore there can be no objective standard without a subject to value it making it, by definition, subjective.

Let's just begin with something non-moral: the imperial system of measurement from your OP. We begin with a statement, "Michael Jordan is taller than Tom Cruise." The relation, "taller than," implies some standard by which height is measured. The relevant imperial unit would be the inch. We use the inch to measure height. According to your definition the inch is objective because, "it is what it is regardless of how we feel about it." It is not subjective because it is not, "based on how we feel about it or how it makes us feel."

Yet according to your quote above, "There can be no objective standard without a subject to value it making it, by definition, subjective." I'm not quite sure what this means. Apparently because the subject "values" the imperial system the imperial system is therefore subjective? Or because the subject "values" the inch the inch is therefore subjective?

I'm not really following your argument. Or does it not apply to the inch?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It is my assertion that all morality is subjective, however, morality can be objective within a value framework.

Only subjects can consider things in terms of value. Rocks don't consider things in terms of value. So, the idea that morality can only be objective within a value framework is not much more than saying only subjects can be moral. The question is, "Is there a framework that lays out a value system that obtains for all subjects of a particular kind?" If so, then morality can be objective because there are some values that obtain for all.

The one candidate for such a framework that comes to my mind is life, optimal life and all that works in its favor. At any rate, if such a framework is possible then we might say, in all possible worlds where human life obtains, there are certain values that are commensurate. That's not wholly unlike saying, in all possible worlds where physical objects exist, there are certain properties that are commensurate. That's about as objective as objective gets.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
First, let me say that morality is not an individual pursuit. That is, people can have ideas about what they think morality should be, but there is no such thing as "individual morality". Just as there is no such thing as a married bachelor. Let's use a sports analogy here. In the game of Soccer, it is considered wrong for anyone but the goalie to use their hands. What if one person picked up the ball and carried it to the other end ignoring all the rules and then proclaimed that he had his own interpretation of the rules?
There is individual morality. People can have their own code of conduct they believe they should personally follow. To use your analogy, in soccer a forward should position themselves and play differently than a midfielder (that's morality) but they all have to follow the rules of the game enforced by the referees (that's ethics).
 
Upvote 0

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
But not all valuable things are human artifacts.

I used a chair as an example.

So here, let's put it this way, what is the value of water outside a conscience and sentient mind to value it?


No sentient beings? It would still have value in relation to the ecosystem.

Disagree, a tree needs water, but it does not value it, it is purely a biological function, that's not value. Value requires thought and consideration. You are confusing value with need.

Are trees subjects or objects? The fact that they are alive does not make them, IMO subjects. Because then we need to ask the question, what properties does something have to have to be considered a subject and not an object?

But even if I concede you are correct for the sake of discussion, then remove all living organisms from the equation. Would value exist in a place without something to do the value?

Remember the point here is that objects do not place value on things, only subjects, so even if I concede that trees value water, my point still stands. If you think a tree is a subject, then the subject--->Object relationship I talked about is still in tact.

I'm not really following your argument. Or does it not apply to the inch?

Ok, so we agree the choice to make an inch about this long:

|--------------| (this is an inch on my screen, it will depend on your resolution, but run with me here)

1) The choice to make it the length above was chosen subjectively, agree?

2) If I say I'm 73 inches tall (and I am), is that statement subjective or objective?

The answer, IMO, is in relation to the distance we call an inch is that it is objectively true as long as we are using the word inch to represent the standard we all know and accept.

If I said to you, "No, I have my own standard for what an inch is and it's this long":

|--------------------------------------------------------|

What would you say to that?

Hopefully, you'd correct me and point out that I can use whatever distance I want, but people won't recognize that as an inch.

Standards are social constructs that exist because of the shared utility they provide and the fact that people share the same ideas about what words mean, in this case, what is an "inch".

So while the decision on what to make the standard is subjective, within the context of that standard, the first measurement I gave abe is objectively one inch. Any other distance, and it's not an inch.

One more example. Let's say I'm asked to come and join a game of soccer. I say yes. The game starts and I pick up the ball with my hands and I run to the goal and throw it in.

Am I playing soccer? Objectively, soccer is a game where hands aren't used. If I say, well that's not how I play soccer, people would remind me that it doesn't matter how I define the rules, the rules are agreed upon and formalized beforehand, so whatever I'm playing isn't soccer.

Even though the rules are chosen subjectively, once the rules are in place there are objectively right and wrong ways to play. That's not to say BTW, that the rules can't be changed, but the process requires that people agree on the changes and from that point forward, everyone agrees to adhear to the new rule/s.

I hope that makes sense.
 
Upvote 0

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Only subjects can consider things in terms of value. Rocks don't consider things in terms of value.

Agreed.


So, the idea that morality can only be objective within a value framework is not much more than saying only subjects can be moral.

Agreed, but the distinction is an important one that should not be overlooked. I think we intuitively know that hurting others without justification (either actual or potential) is wrong. That said, as you seem to understand, for something to be wrong in this context there has to be a subject being wronged.

When a group of subjects comes together and says hurting people without justification is wrong, then in the confines of that standard, hurting people without justification (justifications being things like, my dentist hurts me when she gives me a shot) is wrong.

That doesn't mean that the value that underlies the standard is correct. For instance, there was a time when owning other people was ok. What was the value? The labor they provided. What happens over time is certain values rise to the top or we see the contradictions in our values, in this case, the recognition that owning others causes harm and suffering was considered more valuable than the labor that slaves provided.

The one candidate for such a framework that comes to my mind is life, optimal life and all that works in its favor. At any rate, if such a framework is possible then we might say, in all possible worlds where human life obtains, there are certain values that are commensurate. That's not wholly unlike saying, in all possible worlds where physical objects exist, there are certain properties that are commensurate. That's about as objective as objective gets.

That's a little esoteric and I'm not sure I'm reading what you mean to say, would you mind rephasing so I can be sure I understand exactly what you mean?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
To use your analogy, in soccer a forward should position themselves and play differently than a midfielder (that's morality) but they all have to follow the rules of the game enforced by the referees (that's ethics).

Yeah, I hear you. Unfortunately, I think there is a broad misuse of these terms such that the line between them has been blured.

Take the following as an example:

upload_2020-7-6_11-30-56.png



This is from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It certainly seems to support your contention.


But the article finishes like this:


upload_2020-7-6_11-33-10.png


So I concede that you are probably correct, I have chosen to use the terms ethics and morality as I think most people, especially morality from a biblical point of view in a more colloquial sense.

So let's go back to soccer analogy.

Morals are the rules of the game, ethics is the decision to play by those rules or not. If not it could be because you think the rules don't accomplish better moral outcomes.

If you disagree and think it should be the other way around, that's fine, their just words and we can adapt our understanding as long as we define what we mean when we use specific words as I've just done.

I think the Brittanica article shows there isn't really a clear distinction.

-Cheers
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-7-6_11-14-6.png
    upload_2020-7-6_11-14-6.png
    89.6 KB · Views: 1
  • upload_2020-7-6_11-14-26.png
    upload_2020-7-6_11-14-26.png
    91.1 KB · Views: 1
  • upload_2020-7-6_11-15-48.png
    upload_2020-7-6_11-15-48.png
    93.7 KB · Views: 2
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's a little esoteric and I'm not sure I'm reading what you mean to say, would you mind rephasing so I can be sure I understand exactly what you mean?

Let's go back to your concise assertion.

It is my assertion that all morality is subjective, however, morality can be objective within a value framework.

The framework in which objective human morality occurs is the framework of human life. Optimal human life and all that works towards that end is the framework. Moreover, there are certain values commensurate to human life. That is, there are certain goods of value that human life needs in order for it to be human life. Humans need food, shelter, clothing, etc. But, human life is more than mere existence. Humans also need meaning, purpose, relationships, leisure, etc. Moral claims that have objective status will be claims in relation to those goods and values that all human life needs

Murder is objectively wrong because human life is inherently of value. So long as human life has value, and all that works in favor of human life has value, then there will be objective morality. I think we are in agreement on this, but I am up for correction if I have misunderstood.

It is trivial to say that objective morality for humans is subjective. Humans are subjects who value. There may be other kinds of subjects who value (God, angels, aliens, etc.), but our concern is human morality, not morality for all kinds of subjects. Saying that morality is based on human values does not make it any less objective. So long as there is human life, there will be commensurate values because there are goods that all human life needs. Unless we are Platonists, we don't have to think of moral objectivity as a relationship between particular moral acts and some set of ideal standards that exists in a super-sensible realm.

That was what I was trying to show by saying that in all possible worlds where human life obtains, there will also be commensurate values (and hence, objective morality). There may be other possible worlds where there is no human life, and in those worlds the relevant values will not obtain. So, what? There also may be some possible worlds where no physical objects exists. In those worlds there will also be an absence of relevant properties commensurate to physical objects. Does that mean the properties of physical objects in worlds where they do exist are not objective since there might be worlds with no such objects or properties? No, of course not. And so it is with human values and the objective morality that obtains for human life. The only thing needed for objective morality relevant to human life is the existence of human life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Disagree, a tree needs water, but it does not value it, it is purely a biological function, that's not value. Value requires thought and consideration. You are confusing value with need.

Are trees subjects or objects? The fact that they are alive does not make them, IMO subjects. Because then we need to ask the question, what properties does something have to have to be considered a subject and not an object?

But even if I concede you are correct for the sake of discussion, then remove all living organisms from the equation. Would value exist in a place without something to do the value?

Remember the point here is that objects do not place value on things, only subjects, so even if I concede that trees value water, my point still stands. If you think a tree is a subject, then the subject--->Object relationship I talked about is still in tact.

There is a difference between the noun and verb forms of value. Just because something is not valued (verb) by an intentional agent does not mean it has no value (noun). That is one of the basic conflations I think you are committing. Saying something has value is not the same thing as saying that it has value for humans. The colloquial word "value" simply isn't human-relative, despite the fact that the verb (generally) is.

Similarly, human morality need not depend on human valuing. An alien species could observe our species and formulate a virtue ethics based on the objective ends that relate to our flourishing. The subjective values of our species need not enter into this, though for our sake it is obviously good that they do.

Ok, so we agree the choice to make an inch about this long:

|--------------| (this is an inch on my screen, it will depend on your resolution, but run with me here)

Okay.

1) The choice to make it the length above was chosen subjectively, agree?

According to your definition it is not subjective. It is not "based on how we feel about them or how they make us feel."

2) If I say I'm 73 inches tall (and I am), is that statement subjective or objective?

It is objective. It is the statement that the length of your body is equivalent to 73 inch measurements. According to your definition that is an objective statement, because it is what it is regardless of how we feel about it.

The answer, IMO, is in relation to the distance we call an inch is that it is objectively true as long as we are using the word inch to represent the standard we all know and accept.

And what other option is there when referring to "inch"? You're introducing the tangential problem of how naming works and confusing the issue.

If I said to you, "No, I have my own standard for what an inch is and it's this long":

|--------------------------------------------------------|

What would you say to that?

I would say that we are using the same name to name different realities. When introduced in such a way it is the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Standards are social constructs that exist because of the shared utility they provide and the fact that people share the same ideas about what words mean, in this case, what is an "inch".

Names are social conventions; lengths are objective realities. When a name refers to a length--such as an inch--it is referring to an objective reality. The fact that someone can name their child "Inch" doesn't matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Econ4every1

Active Member
Nov 13, 2017
85
11
53
Winchester
✟14,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for the clarification!

The framework in which objective human morality occurs is the framework of human life. Optimal human life and all that works towards that end is the framework. Moreover, there are certain values commensurate to human life. That is, there are certain goods of value that human life needs in order for it to be human life. Humans need food, shelter, clothing, etc. But, human life is more than mere existence. Humans also need meaning, purpose, relationships, leisure, etc.

Perfect and can't agree more...


Murder is objectively wrong because human life is inherently of value.

And here is where we roll off the rails...

Human life is inherently valuable to whom?

Humans and possible other sentience creatures.

Humans are subjects, not objects. Objects cannot value, only subjects, which therefore means that at the macroscopic level, outside of any framework, human life has no inherent value to anything/ anyone other than humans. Perhaps one day we'll meet other sentient beings who can value humans, but they too will be subjects.

So when I say that morality is subjective, it is by its nature.

When I say within the framework of human existence we can understand life and all the things that are, as you say, commensurate with its capacity to flourish and more importantly the conditions under which it suffers and proclaim automatically that suffering is something that optimal human life should avoid. Once we agree these are goals that we should strive to attain (flourishing) or avoid (suffering) there are objectively right and wrong ways to achieve those goals. There may be more than one way, there may be 1000 ways to flourish and a billion ways to suffer, but the fact remains that there are empirically measurable ways to flourish and suffer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Morals are the rules of the game, ethics is the decision to play by those rules or not. If not it could be because you think the rules don't accomplish better moral outcomes.
And what are the individual strategies of the individual players that fall within the rules of the game?

For instance, it's within the rules of the game for the goalie to leave the goal whenever he pleases, but should he run all the way to the other end of the field? No, but other players should.

It's all well and good if you want to use the terms interchangeably as long as you explain that you are. The problem is that you're using your new definitions to ignore a very real aspect of morality and declaring it logically inconsistent.
 
Upvote 0