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

[durangodawood]

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

This is the essence of our dispute.

I think how we feel is secondary. These feelings are the result of deep biological and social conditioning about what keeps humans invested in their societies so those societies can persist.

 

[durangodawood]

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

Sweets is an interest example. We like them because we're biologically conditioned to go for the energy density of sugary things. Objective basis. Is it "good" to eat them in todays world? Lets see what the nutritionists have to say....

If eating sweets hurt others in a clear way, it would have become a moral issue and nature or culture would have hammered the feeling of "bad" into us as a result.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think how we feel is secondary. These feelings are the result of deep biological and social conditioning about what keeps humans invested in their societies so those societies can persist.

For any given value we can point to some thing as the objective cause of that value. Does that mean all values have an objective basis?

I'll do you one better. Every single value you have is the result of biological processes. No one can pick a value on a whim and start valuing it. Our brains are wired to remember the associations we make between things and feelings so that we can learn from experience. So absolutely every thing you like is the result of biology, brain chemistry, and evolution and therefore has an objective basis. right?

How about the fact that we are hardwired to trust our own biases first and foremost? We have to devise techniques like double-blind studies in science to defy our deep biological programming. Isn't following our biases good because it has an objective basis? And circumventing our biases is bad because it goes against our programming?

No, the reason you have for feeling some values are more important than others is that you value your continued existence, the persistence of society, and that society functioning in such a way as to promote other values you have like feeling safe and secure. That's all fine, I share those values too, as do most humans. But intersubjective agreement doesn't make us correct to value the things we do. It doesn't make our values actually special in some way.

Sweets is an interest example. We like them because we're biologically conditioned to go for the energy density of sugary things. Objective basis. Is it "good" to eat them in todays world? Lets see what the nutritionists have to say....

If eating sweets hurt others in a clear way, it would have become a moral issue and nature or culture would have hammered the feeling of "bad" into us as a result.

Morality only requires one person to exist, so I think the point you're going for here fails.

 

[Econ4every1]

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

No, they don't.

Let's take a look at other systems of rules we've created.

Look at a clock. Whatever time it is, let's say 11:23am. Is it objectively 11:23am?

Well, in the confines of the universe it isn't, but within the shared system of time, it is. If you say, we'll, I have my own time and it's not 11:23am or if I told you it was 11:23am and you told me that was just my opinion...Is it just my opinion?

You can say it is, but I bet you don't live by that.

Try showing up to an interview 1/2 hour late and then telling your potential employer that time is subjective and a matter of personal opinion and see if you get the job.

Point is, the system of rules we create is subjective in a sense, but in practice, we all understand these systems and abide by them, not because of their subjective or objective nature, rather because they have value to enough of us and that makes them useful.

It is our desire to accomplish things and avoid others that relate to our shared values that makes these systems useful and morality is no different.

There is no such thing as "personal time, personal measurement or personal morality. I mean, we can all consider other systems of time, measurement and morality, but we always do so in the context of other people with whom we'll share these ideas.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, they don't.

Yes, we do. Tell me something you want, and I'll tell you something you value, whatever it is.

 

[Econ4every1]

Yes, we do. Tell me something you want, and I'll tell you something you value, whatever it is.

Who cares what I value? No one, until what I value affects you. Enter the concept of morality.

 

[Econ4every1]

This is the essence of our dispute.

I think how we feel is secondary. These feelings are the result of deep biological and social conditioning about what keeps humans invested in their societies so those societies can persist.

See above

 

[Moral Orel]

Who cares what I value? No one, until what I value affects you. Enter the concept of morality.

You don't care what you value?

 

[Econ4every1]

You don't care what you value?

You're smarter than that. You know what I meant, do I really need to explain that?

 

[Moral Orel]

You're smarter than that. You know what I meant, do I really need to explain that?

So you do care what you value, and you do value what you want, whatever that is.

Lemme ask you this. I describe a value as a like or dislike or preference. Does that sum it up, or do you think our values are something more or better than that? Let's see if we can all find something we agree on.

 

[Moral Orel]

Same question to you, @durangodawood : I describe a value as a like or dislike or preference. Does that sum it up, or do you think our values are something more or better than that? Let's see if we can all find something we agree on.

 

[Econ4every1]

I describe a value as a like or dislike or preference.

Values arise as a result of our desires or as you put it, preference.

But my questions to you in return are:

1) How do you chose what you prefer?

2) Do you prefer all things equally or would you say you'd rank your preferences from lesser to greater?

3)Do you think you could choose to prefer whatever you want, or would you say that your biology creates higher preferences for some things (or lack of those things) over others?

4) If you take the things you prefer the absolute most (or prefer to avoid), how do you think they would compare with other people?

 

[Moral Orel]

Values arise as a result of our desires or as you put it, preference.

I didn't ask what the cause of values is, I asked what they are. Are they something more than a thing you like or dislike or feel a preference for?

 

[durangodawood]

For any given value we can point to some thing as the objective cause of that value. Does that mean all values have an objective basis?

I'll do you one better. Every single value you have is the result of biological processes. No one can pick a value on a whim and start valuing it. Our brains are wired to remember the associations we make between things and feelings so that we can learn from experience. So absolutely every thing you like is the result of biology, brain chemistry, and evolution and therefore has an objective basis. right?

How about the fact that we are hardwired to trust our own biases first and foremost? We have to devise techniques like double-blind studies in science to defy our deep biological programming. Isn't following our biases good because it has an objective basis? And circumventing our biases is bad because it goes against our programming?

No, the reason you have for feeling some values are more important than others is that you value your continued existence, the persistence of society, and that society functioning in such a way as to promote other values you have like feeling safe and secure. That's all fine, I share those values too, as do most humans. But intersubjective agreement doesn't make us correct to value the things we do. It doesn't make our values actually special in some way.

Whats this "actually special"? I have this feeling youre trying to make me answer for the idea of absolute or universal or God-revealed moral rules. But I wont do that because I dont believe in them. I think this is what youre looking for when you keep asking if I can say a moral rule is "correct". (If not, then what exactly are you asking for?)

As I see it, "correct" is how we term moral rules that keep humans invested in their societies so those societies can persist, as Ive stated.

I can just hear it..."so then you cant say X action IS morally correct"? Well, not in the universal/absolute sense. But I can in the context of what we know makes for good living.

 

[durangodawood]

Same question to you, @durangodawood : I describe a value as a like or dislike or preference. Does that sum it up, or do you think our values are something more or better than that? Let's see if we can all find something we agree on.

I guess so.

But I would keep in mind that some values are personal and idiosyncratic, contingent on individual biographical facts. Others are natural to the human species generally. It obscures a lot when we fail to note the distinction.

 

[Moral Orel]

Whats this "actually special"? I have this feeling youre trying to make me answer for the idea of absolute or universal or God-revealed moral rules. But I wont do that because I dont believe in them. I think this is what youre looking for when you keep asking if I can say a moral rule is "correct". (If not, then what exactly are you asking for?)

I'm a hard agnostic and an atheist. If there was a god, moral objectivity is, at best, an arbitrary set of instructions. Can you stop worrying that I'm trying to lead you into a god-trap now? I'd prefer that your responses don't require you to phrase everything in such a way as to avoid a conclusion that couldn't ever be coming.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm a hard agnostic and an atheist. If there was a god, moral objectivity is, at best, an arbitrary set of instructions. Can you stop worrying that I'm trying to lead you into a god-trap now? I'd prefer that your responses don't require you to phrase everything in such a way as to avoid a conclusion that couldn't ever be coming.

OK, so when you ask me if or how I can consider X "correct", what exactly do you mean by correct?

And just in your own view: do you feel actions can be morally correct, or morally wrong? If so, same question as above.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK, so when you ask me if or how I can consider X "correct", what exactly do you mean by correct?

How about via example with something we agree on? It is correct that having a well staffed and well funded fire department decreases the number of lives lost and the property damage associated with fires. This is factually true, so it is correct.

 

[durangodawood]

How about via example with something we agree on? It is correct that having a well staffed and well funded fire department decreases the number of lives lost and the property damage associated with fires. This is factually true, so it is correct.

Sorry, I wasnt precise enough. I meant to ask this: do you feel actions can be morally correct, or morally wrong? If so, what precisely do you mean by correct in this context?

 

[Moral Orel]

Sorry, I wasnt precise enough. I meant to ask this: do you feel actions can be morally correct, or morally wrong? If so, what precisely do you mean by correct in this context?

I think you're trying to skip ahead to your conclusion, and I think all that jumping around is what is making us seem like we disagree on more than we do.

So let's go back to values. Values are likes and dislikes, ya? If you like X, then you like more of X, so you like things that make there be more of X. Ya? Simplify and pretend like we know X doesn't carry things you don't like so we don't have to worry about a "too much of a good thing" issue.