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

[Kaon]

No, eating glass is bad for everyone not just me.



If you have to pull a fictional character in order to make your point, it says a little about you're argument. But, let's say you are correct, assuming the x-person isn't immortal, there is probably something that could harm them in which case all we need to do is replace the glass in my example with that thing and BINGO!

I don't have to, I am doing it to show a neutral example in this thought experiment.

As I alluded to before, it is erroneous to equate or appromaximate morality with objectivity. It can't be done unless you move goal posts - for which the limit should not exist. In other words, if I can entertain your idea of morality being objective within tribes (even if I disagree), you should be able to entertain something you find equally as ludicrous - like comic book characters in this reality.

It highlights how you only need one other observer to change morality, and how consensus - even within tribes or "civilizations" - are not indicative of objective morality. Objectivity is juxtapositioned upon morality in order to vindicate a certain paradigm; morality and all of its facets are categorically subjective.

I could easily say: someone on earth believes eating silica is the way to enlightenment, seeing the Thanatos Star in the Plat quadrant of the Xechro galaxy and eventually attaining immortality. There are religions and cults that lead people to do this. We can't ever truly deny whether they got their want because no one we know of has come back from death (except One). So, sure one can dismiss it - a handicap against the one - but it is real to the devotee. In their perspective, eating glass is the way to eternal life.

It comes down to the school(s) of thought you subscribe to. and how good of a job the institutions do (if applicable) to maintain an agreed-upon code. But, it is still chimps leading chimps, blind leading blind, and human error upon error - we just qualify it as objective to substantiate our cultural devotion to these agreed-upon codes.

Remember here, we're talking about the basis of a moral system for human beings, here, in this world. If the only argument you can come up with to invalidate my argument is to pull as yet unknown other planes of existence into the argument, then I'm going to say that your argument is pretty weak

There are entities on this plane of existence that defy the codes and possibilities of certain schools of thought to which you may subscribe. It doesn't depend on whether or not you are convinced, and it shouldn't, since reality of things explained and unexplained exist in spite of our ignorance.

Having said that, it is easy to dismiss what doesn't fit into your sphere of possibilities, based on your school(s) of thought. But the action is a projection of the error of the institutions upholding the code in the first place.

Dismissing things that you can't perceive with your rudimentary 5 senses is at best myopic. And yet, we do it all the time, and trust our institutions to evolve something of substance - even if we already know the answer.

Are you getting what I am saying?

You handicap yourself with logic and reason, and dismiss what doesn't fit into that box based on what you have determined to be a code worthy of following. When you encounter something that is outside your sphere of possibility, you are left with no choice other than to reject it, or tear down the institutional and philosophical foundation of your school of thought to build it back up (now making room to fit what was previously thought to be impossible). Either way, it is a massive waste of time and energy.

If you can't entertain every possibility without necessarily accepting it, then morality is just a moniker for "codices of the ego for which I agree". Part of judging the reality of something is the ability to entertain what may be behind what you know of as reality.

I'm not surprised by it, I reject it.

That is almost even worse.

Not yet.




Again, not yet.



I don't worship a god, yet.

You, meaning any general person. If you don't worship a God yet, why are you asking questions about Step 2 and Step 4? There is an order to things.

If that's true that would be amazing, but I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe that's true.

You likely do not know what to look for in a god, if it were to be possible for it to exist (to you), since as you said you reject the illogical and unreasonable. So, how could you possibly be led to any god when you reject the very idea? You are in an ouroboros pattern of (il)logical self-sabatoge should you ever decide to truly seek a god out.

Outside the States, there are many people who know the Word of the Most High, who do exploits in His name according to His will, and are fully enlightened to this world and the ones beyond. There are many like this in the States as well, but the people outside the States I am mentioning have not had access to ways hear or read the Word of the Most High: instead they are open to, and become one with Him so much so that He is able to instruct them without the need for ministers, edifices and other vectors of information sharing.

Just because you have never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that people who claim to have seen/experienced it are delusional. You handicap your thinking by fortifying the walls of your school(s) of thought perpetually - so that only select things of your approval get in or out.


The best thing to do is resist denominating the quality and objectivity of morality, since this is what actually leads to what we know of as immorality. Morality cannot be made to be objective; people have tried to do it, fought wars over it, and continue to die over protecting so-called objective morality.

 

[Econ4every1]

You likely do not know what to look for in a god

How do you know what I have looked for?

So, how could you possibly be led to any god when you reject the very idea?

I never said I reject the idea of a god. I said that I haven't seen anything that would convince me, yet.

Outside the States, there are many people...

This is called the argumentum ad populum. Appealing to what others "know" is not a convincing form of argumentation.

Just because you have never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen

True, but then again, I never claimed to know "it doesn't happen" or claim that anyone "is delusional".

You handicap your thinking by fortifying the walls of your school(s) of thought perpetually - so that only select things of your approval get in or out.

Using strawman arguments is, again, a sign of the weakness of your argument.

Morality cannot be made to be objective

I agree, a lot of people are having trouble understanding me.

Durang said it better than I have.

Let's see if I can paraphrase.

Our experience of the world is subjective.

Morals arise as a result of objective facts that happen to humans (or any conscious creature).

I'd add that it's our capacity to perceive our reality and the capacity to understand that there are other conscious creatures with similar values.

That said, you don't believe that there are objective morals? Or are you saying that morality is objective rather than is objective under circumstance X.

 

[Kaon]

Using strawman arguments is, again, a sign of the weakness of your argument.

OK. Then I will just stop here.

Cheers.

 

[Econ4every1]

OK. Then I will just stop here.

Cheers.

Tah, Tah!

 

[zippy2006]

But that's just my subjective opinion.

Well, everything you've written is your subjective opinion. Words don't function any differently than values. On your view they are also entirely subjective, and have no ability to access truth, which is objective by definition. Given your self-proclaimed prison of subjectivism, I'm not at all sure why you keep using words to try to convince me that certain things are true. For example, you keep trying to convince me that it is true that morality is subjective. You're a walking contradiction. ..Or a talking contradiction?

If you really think that human productions are entirely subjective, then please stop trying to use subjective words to communicate objective truth. If, on the other hand, you want to keep arguing, then the only logically consistent option would be to drop the strange idea that all morals and words are entirely subjective. Either way, this argument is over.

 

[Econ4every1]

Well, everything you've written is your subjective opinion. Words don't function any differently than values. On your view they are also entirely subjective, and have no ability to access truth, which is objective by definition. Given your self-proclaimed prison of subjectivism, I'm not at all sure why you keep using words to try to convince me that certain things are true. For example, you keep trying to convince me that it is true that morality is subjective. You're a walking contradiction. ..Or a talking contradiction?

If you really think that human productions are entirely subjective, then please stop trying to use subjective words to communicate objective truth. If, on the other hand, you want to keep arguing, then the only logically consistent option would be to drop the strange idea that all morals and words are entirely subjective. Either way, this argument is over.

It feels more like you have no response to this post, but your call. Thanks for taking the time to discuss.

-Cheers

 

[Kaon]

My question is what would be the highest morality could anyone achieve while here on this earth?

There have been two people who answered my questions and they both have said empathy.

The highest morality? No "morality" at all.

If you are following other humans, you are already setting yourself and your progeny up for degeneracy. It seems humanity in general is, at best, doomed to repeat different iterations of the past - no matter how we handle existentialism, and no matter how well-refined our global and/or local civilizations are. If you follow a code out of fear or incentive, then you aren't actually a follower. If you have to be told what is right and wrong, you aren't in a position to ascertain what is high or low (and certainly incapable of determining a superlative).

Anyone can have empathy; it takes little effort to be empathetic to people who look like/behave like/care about you - which is why there is so much effort spent on conformity. It is a civilization's attempt at maximizing empathy without actually being empathetic: the likelihood that you will stand by and watch a fellow citizen die by local or foreign hands is small if you can empathize with your fellow citizen. This has, in the past, extended the longevity of some kingdoms.


The purpose of morality is to ensure a stable civilization.

 

[Chriliman]

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

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

Sure it’s possible. People are “objects”
In the sense that they exist objectively apart from you and they make value judgments all the time and sometimes they are objectively correct in those value judgments.

 

[Moral Orel]

The statement:

Eating broken glass is bad.

Subjective or objective?

Vague is what it is. As I said, if something is good or bad, that means I do or don't like it, respectively. But that's in the context of values. You are using it in the context of "detrimental to health". That's fine, but "being healthy is good" is subjective, so you haven't escaped subjectivity.

Sorry I took so long to respond. This didn't pop up in my alerts. They've been acting funny lately. I took the liberty of reading the rest of the thread to see the discussion that spawned from this post to find out what you were getting at.

A long while back you said this:

Well, I've been trying to explain most of this thread, that morality is a reflection of our values. Only subjects consciously value.

So our values are subjective. Let's use that fact in your next bit of reasoning:

I value being free from harm.

Subjective. You like being free from harm.

This is why I don't eat bowls full of glass.

You don't eat glass because of subjective reasons: you would dislike the harm that comes from eating glass.

It's not just my opinion that eating glass is bad, it's bad by definition, that is, if the word "bad" means anything coherent.

This doesn't follow at all. You just said that you don't eat glass for subjective reasons therefore it's not an opinion. What??? Also, is the phrase "I don't like this" incoherent to you?

 

[Econ4every1]

Sure it’s possible. People are “objects”

We can stop here, people are subjects, not objects.

You can't redefine words for the sake of a discussion.

 

[Econ4every1]

As I said, if something is good or bad, that means I do or don't like it, respectively. But that's in the context of values. You are using it in the context of "detrimental to health". That's fine, but "being healthy is good" is subjective, so you haven't escaped subjectivity.

Sweet, we agree completely.

I'm not saying that the statement is objective outside of the context of human subjects and the value statements they make.

It's simple and I don't know why this claim is the result of so much consternation.

Morality concerns subjects, not objects. Within the context of subjects, there are objective facts that we can and do know with respect to the values we hold.

So when someone says to me, murder is wrong is just your subjective opinion, as if I'm choosing between chocolate and vanilla. These are different kinds of opinions with different consequences.

The choice between chocolate and vanilla is not a moral one because it does not involve harm, suffering or sickness unless the person is allergic and then our morals do kick in.

Thus morality is based on real experiences. Since most people experience the world in a similar way, i.e. they feel pain and can suffer. As a result similar values arise and there are objective actions and behaviors we can take with respect to those values.

That said, two people from different cultures can claim to value similar things, but one culture better achieves that value.

It's also possible that two people of different cultures can value the same thing and come to completely different conclusions about how to accomplish goals related to that value and both do it with the same level of success.

 

[Moral Orel]

So when someone says to me, murder is wrong is just your subjective opinion, as if I'm choosing between chocolate and vanilla. These are different kinds of opinions with different consequences.

The choice between chocolate and vanilla is not a moral one because it does not involve harm, suffering or sickness unless the person is allergic and then our morals do kick in.

There's your mistake. Morality isn't defined as pertaining to harm, suffering or sickness. That is your subjective list of values at play.

 

[Econ4every1]

Morality isn't defined as pertaining to harm, suffering or sickness. That is your subjective list of values at play.

Sure they're subjective, I already conceded that, but let's take Sam Harris" example and see where we come out.

Imagine a universe where every conscious creature suffers as much as possible for as long as possible.

Is that "bad"?

Is it just my value system telling me that's bad and the fact that someone else might think that's bad is purely a coincidence? Is it just my subjective opinion that this would be bad? Are my values different from yours or any other sane person in believing that I value a universe where this isn't the case?

The fact is that humans and other conscious creatures share many of the same values that arise from our shared experiences.

Morality is a social construct where people agree on behaviors and actions that are good and bad.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure they're subjective, I already conceded that

Then why isn't the choice between chocolate and vanilla "a moral one". What's the distinction? The distinction you claimed wasn't really there.

The rest of your post is a red herring filled with straw men. I won't address it. Stick to the topic of whether the difference between choosing chocolate and vanilla or choosing to murder or not murder are comparable. Is there any distinction besides your personal feeling that avoiding harm is more important? Why isn't the choice between chocolate and vanilla a moral choice?

 

[Chriliman]

We can stop here, people are subjects, not objects.

You can't redefine words for the sake of a discussion.

Call them what you want they still exist objectively in relation to you and the point I made still stands.

BTW, I do agree with a lot of what you say except what I pointed out.

 

[Chriliman]

Then why isn't the choice between chocolate and vanilla "a moral one". What's the distinction? The distinction you claimed wasn't really there.

The rest of your post is a red herring filled with straw men. I won't address it. Stick to the topic of whether the difference between choosing chocolate and vanilla or choosing to murder or not murder are comparable. Is there any distinction besides your personal feeling that avoiding harm is more important? Why isn't the choice between chocolate and vanilla a moral choice?

What if we view morality as a scale where the low end represent relatively inconsequential good/bad decisions like ice cream preference and the high end represents highly consequential good/bad decisions like murdering someone?

 

[Econ4every1]

Then why isn't the choice between chocolate and vanilla "a moral one". What's the distinction? The distinction you claimed wasn't really there.

Morals arise as a result of the values we hold.

Values relate to our experience.

We place a higher value on things that have to do with avoiding unnecessary suffering, harm, and sickness. These things exist on a continuum.

So, if faced with immeasurable suffering, how might the choice between chocolate and vanilla compare?

The rest of your post is a red herring filled with straw men.

I don't think those mean what you think they mean.

Stick to the topic of whether the difference between choosing chocolate and vanilla or choosing to murder or not murder are comparable.

Are you really arguing they are?

Is there any distinction besides your personal feeling that avoiding harm is more important?

That depends on the values you hold.

Why isn't the choice between chocolate and vanilla a moral choice?

In fairness, it probably is, but a fairly inconsequential one compared to other moral choices.

 

[Econ4every1]

Call them what you want they still exist objectively in relation to you and the point I made still stands

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:

Sure it’s possible. People are “objects”

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.

BTW, I do agree with a lot of what you say except what I pointed out.

Excellent!

 

[Econ4every1]

What if we view morality as a scale

Indeed, we do things like this already. We know what sickness looks like and we place illnesses on an intuitive scale. I know that Lung Cancer is worse than Chicken Pox, even though I can't tell you every illness and how it compares to others or quantify what a scale might look like.

 

[Moral Orel]

Morals arise as a result of the values we hold.

Values relate to our experience.

We place a higher value on things that have to do with avoiding unnecessary suffering, harm, and sickness. These things exist on a continuum.

Yep, and where we place the things on the continuum is subjective too.

So, if faced with immeasurable suffering, how might the choice between chocolate and vanilla compare?

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

I don't think those mean what you think they mean.

They do, that's why I don't waste my time falling for them anymore.

Are you really arguing they are?

Yep.

I value X. I want to do things that promote X.
I value the absence of Y. I want to do things that deter Y.

That is all of morality. X can be chocolate ice cream or it can be survival, Y can be vanilla ice cream or it can be death. Doesn't matter. All this continuum talk wants to add is this:

I really really value X. I really really want to do things that promote X.
I really really value the absence of Y. I really really want to do things that deter Y.

But how strongly you value something is subjective too. So all you've added is another subjective aspect to an already subjective thing.

That depends on the values you hold.

So it depends on how I personally feel about them? If we're just talking about feelings here, and making our judgements based on them, you aren't making an argument anymore.

In fairness, it probably is, but a fairly inconsequential one compared to other moral choices.

And that's your subjective feeling too. You can't measure consequences, you have to follow your feelings which are subjective.