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

[Chriliman]

Ok, so let's go back.

I said:

"To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.”

You said:



Objects cannot have opinions. That makes the idea that people are "objects" logically incoherent.

Now, I'm not sure where you're going with this and I'm open to the fact we simply aren't communing what you want to say (or maybe it's me), but I'm not sure how you justify what you said.



Excellent!

I’m saying subjects and objects are the same in the sense that they exist objectively in relation to you. Therefore, it’s possible for a subject to be objectively correct.

 

[Econ4every1]

Personally, I would definitely prefer to eat any flavor of ice cream over immeasurable suffering. What does my opinion matter though?

Because that is what morality is, it is when groups come together and agree on things that are right and wrong.

Here's where people fall off the rails.

I'm not saying what a group defines as moral is moral, rather that people share basic values like "freedom from suffering". The capacity to suffer isn't based on opinion. Suffering objectively happens, but the decision to call it bad, that's the subjective part. That fact that people want to avoid suffering isn't my opinion either, our biology is hardwired to avoid pain and suffering (though biology is fragile and sometimes it doesn't work the way it's supposed too).

It is possible to value something like "freedom" and, as a society to live up to that value. Our morals often reflect these failures. Failures are often a result of issues of knowledge and environment.

The idea that surfing is bad is "just my opinion" is a statement I could care less about. It doesn't diminish the fact that you and I can agree that the worst possible suffering is "bad" and the greatest possible happiness is "good". From there we know that every other state of human existence, morally speaking, exists between those two extremes and while science can't tell us what we should value or if we should value it, once we agree to value it, science can tell us if we are successful or failing to achieve what we claim to value.

 

[Econ4every1]

Therefore, it’s possible for a subject to be objectively correct.

Ok, sure I can agree with that.

But when it comes to morality, truly objective morality is impossible because only subjects can value. To say that subjects can be objectively correct is not really what I was talking about.

Make sense?

 

[Moral Orel]

It doesn't diminish the fact that you and I can agree that the worst possible suffering is "bad" and the greatest possible happiness is "good".

We can also agree that vanilla is bad and chocolate is good. Same thing. I could place vanilla as the worst possible suffering and chocolate as the greatest possible happiness and I wouldn't be incorrect to do so. I wouldn't be correct either, because opinions and values aren't evaluated on whether they're true or false.

From there we know that every other state of human existence, morally speaking, exists between those two extremes

No, we don't "know" that; it isn't a fact. We subjectively agree to arrange things in that manner. Intersubjectivity =/= objectivity.

science can't tell us what we should value or if we should value it, once we agree to value it, science can tell us if we are successful or failing to achieve what we claim to value.

I don't disagree. The trouble is that you think there's something special about some values. There isn't. Vanilla is just as valid of a thing to hate as murder because it's all subjective.

 

[Chriliman]

Ok, sure I can agree with that.

But when it comes to morality, truly objective morality is impossible because only subjects can value. To say that subjects can be objectively correct is not really what I was talking about.

Make sense?

I would think objective correctness falls somewhere on the scale of morality. If you don’t think so, how do you distinguish objective correctness from morality?

 

[Econ4every1]

I could place vanilla as the worst possible suffering

You can, but that's not how morality works. All you need to do to demonstrate this is:

Go to a party with lots of your friends, be obnoxious, double-dip, get drunk, pee on the floor, puke on the host and then declare that your behavior was exemplary.

See, morality, despite some who claim otherwise, is how people in social groups feel about behavior. Your opinion about your behavior doesn't change the fact that, if you made it to the end of the party without getting thrown out, you probably won't get asked back for another party with that group of friends.

So, yes, you can claim that eating glass is good, but that does not change the fact that relative to your desire to survive that eating glass is objectively bad relative to that value. I mean if the word bad means anything, it means that eating glass is something that can be defined as bad. The fact that the desire to survive is a subjective one doesn't change that.

 

[Econ4every1]

If you don’t think so, how do you distinguish objective correctness from morality?

I think that morality is an expression of shared values in social groups. Within the context of people's desires, let's say the shared desire not to suffer, then within the context of that desire, there are objectively right and wrong ways to accomplish the goal of not suffering.

 

[Moral Orel]

You can, but that's not how morality works.

Yes, that's exactly how morality works. People value whatever they want.

See, morality, despite some who claim otherwise, is how people in social groups feel about behavior.

No, it's not. I can value things and determine how I want to act based on those values without anyone else around. Morality does not require other people.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, that's exactly how morality works. People value whatever they want....

I dont think so. There's lots of social conditioning and eons of biological coding for values that's extremely difficult to overcome.

You cant just decide vanilla is the worst possible suffering, to use your example. You can say it, but you cant just decide to actually feel its worse than having your feet burned off.

 

[durangodawood]

I dont think so. There's lots of social conditioning and eons of biological coding for values that's extremely difficult to overcome.

You cant just decide vanilla is the worst possible suffering, to use your example. You can say it, but you cant just decide to actually feel its worse than having your feet burned off.

I'm picturing you strapped to a chair and a guy puts a blowtorch and bowl of vanilla ice cream on the table before you. "O god please not the ice cream!!!"........ yeah... no.

 

[Moral Orel]

I dont think so. There's lots of social conditioning and eons of biological coding for values that's extremely difficult to overcome.

You cant just decide vanilla is the worst possible suffering, to use your example. You can say it, but you cant just decide to actually feel its worse than having your feet burned off.

I agree we don't consciously choose what we want. Take a look at my phrasing again (it's a double entendre). I would also agree it's extremely unlikely to find such an individual, but people can have weird values.

I'm picturing you strapped to a chair and a guy puts a blowtorch and bowl of vanilla ice cream on the table before you. "O god please not the ice cream!!!"........ yeah... no.

That's cute and all, but some folks lack the ability to feel physical pain so getting their feet burned isn't going to be on the list. I don't happen to be one of those folks, but that doesn't mean they're wrong to organize their values without physical pain being on the list. Whatever they believe is the worst possible suffering is going to seem pretty bizarre to us.

 

[durangodawood]

I agree we don't consciously choose what we want. Take a look at my phrasing again (it's a double entendre). I would also agree it's extremely unlikely to find such an individual, but people can have weird values.


That's cute and all, but some folks lack the ability to feel physical pain so getting their feet burned isn't going to be on the list. I don't happen to be one of those folks, but that doesn't mean they're wrong to organize their values without physical pain being on the list. Whatever they believe is the worst possible suffering is going to seem pretty bizarre to us.

OK... but what we want at a lot of deep value levels isnt something we just decide to create. Its the result of our real world biology and social conditioning. Minorities of people with slightly different real world biology doesnt change that fact. Actually, it reinforces that fact.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK... but what we want at a lot of deep value levels isnt something we just decide to create. Its the result of our real world biology and social conditioning. Minorities of people with slightly different real world biology doesnt change that fact. Actually, it reinforces that fact.

That's all basically true. But as we've been over before, those abnormal pathologies don't create incorrect values and us normal folk don't have the correct values. None of what you've said turns a value into a fact.

 

[durangodawood]

That's all basically true. But as we've been over before, those abnormal pathologies don't create incorrect values and us normal folk don't have the correct values. None of what you've said turns a value into a fact.

Values are facts about species and individuals.

As for turning a value into a moral fact, it doesnt seem that hard: if you value X, then Y behavior promotes it and Z behavior hinders it. You seem to be making a giant unnecessary stumbling block over the way we attach the feelings of right and wrong to these moral facts.

 

[Moral Orel]

Values are facts about species and individuals.

No, they aren't. Here's an example of a value:

Chocolate is good.

Now, it is a fact that I like chocolate. It is a fact that I like chocolate as a result of biological and social processes. It is not a fact that chocolate is good.

As for turning a value into a moral fact, it doesnt seem that hard: if you value X, then Y behavior promotes it and Z behavior hinders it.

That isn't a moral fact, it's an argument for a fact about the effectiveness of a behavior.

Here's an example of a moral fact:

One should not murder.

If you have to appeal to yours or my subjective value for life and harm, then it is not a fact.

You seem to to making a giant unnecessary stumbling block over the way we attach the feelings of right and wrong to these moral facts.

No, I'm getting at the actual nature of what opinions are. I haven't ever disagreed with anyone that after we agree on some subjective opinion we can objectively determine the most effective course of action to promote that opinion. You all seem to want to elevate some opinions to a special status above other opinions because you're afraid that your opinions will become arbitrary. That is what I'm arguing against.

 

[durangodawood]

No, they aren't. Here's an example of a value:

Chocolate is good.

Now, it is a fact that I like chocolate. It is a fact that I like chocolate as a result of biological and social processes. It is not a fact that chocolate is good.

This is kind of cheating. Because "chocolate is good" is just an unthinking shorthand for the more precise "I like chocolate". When pressed, no perceptive person will insist this personal preference is actually a universal fact of the world.

That isn't a moral fact, it's an argument for a fact about the effectiveness of a behavior.

Here's an example of a moral fact:

One should not murder.

If you have to appeal to yours or my subjective value for life and harm, then it is not a fact.

I think we've established that the valuing of life is an objectively factual trait of the human species (and pretty much all species - it runs that deep). Dont get derailed by the way we also feel attached to life. Its like you think our subjective feelings about it are the whole story. Its not.

 

[durangodawood]

...When pressed, no perceptive person will insist this personal preference is actually a universal fact of the world.....

(Wow self, there's a ridiculous amount of P words in that sentence.)

 

[durangodawood]

....No, I'm getting at the actual nature of what opinions are. I haven't ever disagreed with anyone that after we agree on some subjective opinion we can objectively determine the most effective course of action to promote that opinion. You all seem to want to elevate some opinions to a special status above other opinions because you're afraid that your opinions will become arbitrary. That is what I'm arguing against.

Of course some opinions are better than others. People hold destructive ignorant opinions that lead to suffering all the time. Its called being "unwise". I'm perfectly fine having my opinions challenged and I'd like to change them if shown to lead to suffering and misery.

I could see some of my opinions being wrong because I'm ignorant about the long term effects of various behaviors. But I'm not worried about them being arbitrary so long as they are aimed at good living and the reduction of suffering, which are natural human desires that didnt just pop randomly and idiosyncratically into my own head.

 

[Hawkins]

It's rather a wrong premise. The advocate (an obvious possibility) is that objective morality is what given by God. So if humans are close enough to God, such an objective morality exists. Objective morality is rare simply because different group of people are distanced from God in the various ways and to the various extents.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is kind of cheating. Because "chocolate is good" is just an unthinking shorthand for the more precise "I like chocolate".

Exactly! Chocolate is good. Harm is bad. Survival is good. Death is bad.

I think we've established that the valuing of life is an objectively factual trait of the human species (and pretty much all species - it runs that deep).

Yes we've established that humans (generally) like living. So what? It's a fact that humans (generally) like sweets too. So what?

Dont get derailed by the way we also feel attached to life.

How we feel is what valuing is! To value is to desire!

Its like you think our subjective feelings about it are the whole story. Its not.

Nope, I've quite explicitly said different. How we feel is merely the starting point, and therefore the basis, for morality.

Of course some opinions are better than others.

Nope, not in terms of values they aren't. Remember when we established that it's nonsense to ask if it's "correct to hold value X"?

People hold destructive ignorant opinions that lead to suffering all the time. Its called being "unwise". I'm perfectly fine having my opinions challenged and I'd like to change them if shown to lead to suffering and misery.

Eh, I think you're talking about opinions in a different context. People use the word "opinion" to make a guess about a fact, and that's what you're getting at here. For instance, if we want to get to the top of a tall building the fastest way possible I could say, "In my opinion we should take the stairs" and you could say "In my opinion we should take the elevator". In that context, sure, one of us can be correct. But that isn't the context of values. Getting there the fastest is the value. What if I felt that exercise is more important than getting there faster? Is my value less valid than your value? Then we can't compare my "We should take the stairs" versus your "We should take the elevator".

But I'm not worried about them being arbitrary so long as they are aimed at good living and the reduction of suffering, which are natural human desires that didnt just pop randomly and idiosyncratically into my own head.

There are no values that randomly and idiosyncratically pop into people's heads. "Chocolate is good" didn't randomly or idiosyncratically pop into my head either. Valuing good living and the reduction of suffering isn't special. It's normal, sure, but normal =/= good.