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

[Econ4every1]

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?

Values arise as a result of our awareness of how our conscious actions and the actions of others affect us all.

But here's the thing, you're explanation, calling things "just a preference" fails to capture the fact that healthy minds prefer some things more than others, universally, and these preferences aren't driven by mear choice.

I don't choose to like vanilla ice cream (even if I HATE vanilla) more than eating broken glass. That preference is driven by biology and the consequences that arise as a result.

Now you might counter and ask me about someone who enjoys harming themselves. I'd counter with three thoughts.

1) People who harm themselves may subjective experience pleasure, but are objectively experiencing harm.

2) Even people who do these sorts of things may realize that what they are doing is harmful, but for whatever reason cannot stop.

3) And lastly, anyone that doesn't realize their actions are harmful to themselves isn't what we're talking about when we use the term "morality".

There is a choice, a preference if you will. The choice to embrace a shared value system we call morality.

We can choose not to value our own health and well being, but we can't choose not to be harmed by our own actions.

So if we are to ground our values in anything it's the recognition that actions have consequences and those consequences have effects beyond the individual. It's this recognition that leads to morality. Otherwise, morality is just a tautology.

Why shouldn't I do action A? Because it's bad.

Why is it bad?

 

[Econ4every1]

People do change their views on what is moral all the time.

Of course, they do, but those choices happen for two (and possibly more) reasons.

1) Increases or decreases in knowledge

2) Changes in the environment (e.g. people are more likely to be charitable in times of plenty).

There are behaviors and actions we take as humans where we limit or distort information and that's how we move backward.

But that said, over a long enough time span (assuming reasonable stable conditions) humans tend to move to higher standards of morality.

To insinuate that changes occur via whim and don't move in a certain direction is plainly false.

 

[Moral Orel]

Its a question about your argument, which seems to stretch the notion of morality to absurdity. I'm just double checking that I'm getting it right. Can you answer my question?

Okay, so you don't have an argument to make. You just wanted to point out that if that is the conclusion, you feel that's absurd. Okay. I think it's clear starfish have a code of conduct. They perform X act in Y situation and the perform P action in Q situation. That's a code of conduct. Do they have some form of proto-morality? I dunno, I doubt it. It isn't technically in the definition you provided, but morality is linked to emotion if you want to go digging around in scholarly journals on the subject, so if they have zero capacity for emotion then it can't be a form of morality. I'll go so far to say that a robot would have a code of conduct though. But also remember, that you told me that humans act morally based on instinct most of the time, so saying that starfish can't have a code of conduct because it's instinct doesn't fly.

So can you tell me why what I described is not a code of conduct, or did you just want to let me know that you're incredulous about it?

No they dont change it all the time. Changing ones moral code is a pretty rare occasion in a persons life. Contrast that with mere preferences... heck we change what we want for dinner every night.

I didn't say folks change their code all the time, I said they change their views all the time. It isn't at all uncommon for people to change a moral from time to time. What about kids? They gradually gain morals over time, which means they didn't have a code of conduct and it changed over time to expand.

But none of that matters because even if I changed every bit of my moral code on a day to day basis, it would still be a moral code. If I change my filing system every single day, that doesn't make it not a filing system. An endurance test isn't in the definition whatsoever, so you don't get to claim it. Sorry, buddy.

 

[Moral Orel]

Values arise as a result of our awareness of how our conscious actions and the actions of others affect us all.

I didn't ask what causes values, I asked what they are. If they aren't likes or dislikes or preferences, what are they?

If I asked you what mud is, are you going to tell me it's the result of rain?

But here's the thing, you're explanation, calling things "just a preference" fails to capture the fact that healthy minds prefer some things more than others, universally, and these preferences aren't driven by mear choice.

You don't choose what any of your preferences are. Think of some flavor of ice cream you hate. Okay, got it? Now love it instead. Go to the store, pick some up, and truly enjoy it. Look forward to enjoying it because preferences are just things you can choose on a whim, right?

 

[durangodawood]

Okay, so you don't have an argument to make.....

I'm probing your argument, and it seems to have ticked a nerve or something. Sorry about that. I can just leave your arguments unchallenged going forward.

But none of that matters because even if I changed every bit of my moral code on a day to day basis, it would still be a moral code. If I change my filing system every single day, that doesn't make it not a filing system. An endurance test isn't in the definition whatsoever, so you don't get to claim it. Sorry, buddy.

ok buddy. I can see the typical definitions of morality arent working out for you. We've typically thought of morality as a codes of conduct regarding the type of things we label "right" and "wrong". But you seem to think its just the way things behave generally. I'm going to borrow your "citation needed" for this new unrecognizably broad definition.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm probing your argument, and it seems to have ticked a nerve or something. Sorry about that. I can just leave your arguments unchallenged going forward.

"Just asking questions" isn't challenging anything, though an argument would. That's why I asked for an argument. You don't have one because you're not correct. That's why I'm pointing out that you don't have an argument: because your inability to present one is a demonstration that you know you aren't correct.

ok buddy. I can see the typical definitions of morality arent working out for you. We've typically thought of morality as a codes of conduct regarding the type of things we label "right" and "wrong". But you seem to think its just the way things behave generally. I'm going to borrow your "citation needed" for this new unrecognizably broad definition.

Sure, here's a definition that fits everything I've said:

descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior​

I'm sorry that it isn't as narrow as what you've always believed it to be. But the restrictions you thought were there were actually just your personal values in action making you think that what you feel must be true. Does that definition say what those codes of conduct must entail? Nope. Does that definition say codes of conduct can't change? Nope.

That you think these things are factors is a good demonstration of how objective morality comes about. You feel so strongly that some things are important you actually start to believe they are in fact important. You feel that if choosing your favorite ice cream flavor is a moral issue, then hating murder becomes arbitrary, and you would hate that, so ice cream flavor can't be a moral issue. You feel that a shifting code of conduct is bad, so it must be an implied fact even when academic sources don't say anything to support that notion.

 

[durangodawood]

"Just asking questions" isn't challenging anything, though an argument would. That's why I asked for an argument. You don't have one because you're not correct. That's why I'm pointing out that you don't have an argument: because your inability to present one is a demonstration that you know you aren't correct.

Holy wow... I'd agreed earlier that I was going to let you walk me through your argument before I got to mine. And a few questions about your argument sends you off the rails. Thats evidence your argument isnt correct...... We havent even gotten to mine.

 

[Moral Orel]

Holy wow... I'd agreed earlier that I was going to let you walk me through your argument before I got to mine. And a few questions about your argument sends you off the rails. Thats evidence your argument isnt correct...... We havent even gotten to mine.

Sigh... Each overall argument is filled with mini arguments over the premises. You absolutely have been giving arguments over the premises, and then you suddenly stopped with that one. I gave you my answer about your silly starfish question, I gave you an explanation, and you didn't address it. Since you've outright snipped it out of the quotes, I see good reason to think you have no intention of coming back to it either.

 

[durangodawood]

Sigh... Each overall argument is filled with mini arguments over the premises. You absolutely have been giving arguments over the premises, and then you suddenly stopped with that one. I gave you my answer about your silly starfish question, I gave you an explanation, and you didn't address it. Since you've outright snipped it out of the quotes, I see good reason to think you have no intention of coming back to it either.

Thats weird you'd think the starfish question is silly. I mean almost no one (except you) would consider starfish food preference as a moral code of any sort. Any reasonable person would check in to make sure thats your intent. So I'm thinking youre simply trying to be insulting by calling it "silly."

I dont know why youre getting so prickly over this discussion. I'm "silly". I "know I'm not correct". The topic itself is challenging enough without your pointless button pushing and mind reading.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thats weird you'd think the starfish question is silly. I mean almost no one (except you) would consider starfish food preference as a moral code of any sort

Did I say it was a moral code? Looks like you didn't even bother to read my answer after all that prodding.

Any reasonable person would check in to make sure thats your intent. So I'm thinking youre simply trying to be insulting by calling it "silly."

I dont know why youre getting so prickly over this discussion. I'm "silly". I "know I'm not correct". The topic itself is challenging enough without your pointless button pushing and mind reading.

Asking a question about a conclusion you find absurd is a common debate tactic wherein you can make an argument from incredulity without actually having to make an argument. Either the person responds in a way that confirms it, or refuses to fall for it and then you can call it a dodged question. That's why I asked for an argument.

 

[durangodawood]

Did I say it was a moral code? Looks like you didn't even bother to read my answer after all that prodding.

Asking a question about a conclusion you find absurd is a common debate tactic wherein you can make an argument from incredulity without actually having to make an argument. Either the person responds in a way that confirms it, or refuses to fall for it and then you can call it a dodged question. That's why I asked for an argument.

I read back through, and you just couldnt answer the simple question about the starfish example. It wasnt an absurd question. It was precisely about having preferences. Maybe Im missing something about why the starfish example doesnt apply. If so you could have just said what that is. Instead you dodged it. I think youre coming up against the absurdity of your own argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

I read back through, and you just couldnt answer the simple question about the starfish example.

???? You asked if starfish have a code of conduct or a morality. I said they have a code of conduct, but they don't have a morality. Explicitly. You didn't even bother to read my response.

So lets say a starfish has a increasing preference for each of 3 kinds of food, and works harder in preferential order to acquire each them. Is that a code of conduct, a morality?

I think it's clear starfish have a code of conduct.

it can't be a form of morality

So what is it you think I "couldn't" answer, eh?

It wasnt an absurd question. It was precisely about having preferences. Maybe Im missing something about why the starfish example doesnt apply. If so you could have just said what that is. Instead you dodged it. I think youre coming up against the absurdity of your own argument.

Hahaha! See? That's exactly what I said you were asking that question for. I didn't say the starfish example doesn't apply, I answered it head on. But see, you didn't read my response, so you think I avoided it and now you think you've scored a point because I "dodged" it. And you don't think I can read your mind... ha!

Look, I'm sorry, man. But you don't seem to be even making an attempt to argue in good faith anymore. Do you want to attempt to talk about something I've actually said or not?

 

[stevevw]

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.

I think the idea of using a naturalistic basis for measuring what is morally right and wrong is not a good or proper way to measure morality in the first place. In this case human wellbeing or health. Though you can reason that doing meth feels good but maybe doing harm, I think that we will run into many examples that blur the line because what is harmful or a cost to wellbeing is also subjective. Using natural measures for objectivity just doesn't work with morality because morality lives in the metaphysical realm as well.

Yes, we can use harm and wellbeing but that is not the only consideration. Morality can speak about realness and truth which doesn't equate to naturalistic measures in many cases. People can be appealing to a moral value that can only be measured by how it is made real or a 'truth' when applied to a particular situation that may not have a physical basis to measure.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

Yes, it would be absurd because you can't have luxurious comfort without having life.

I think the mistake in western culture today is to separate ethics and philosophy. And the point you made is a good example. Any ethic that renders life absurd should be scrutinized carefully.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

It all depends on whose life. A person might consider their luxury and comfort is more valuable than the life of a person they do not know. Then we consider animal life; I find my luxury more important than animal life.... unless it's my pet.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, it would be absurd because you can't have luxurious comfort without having life.

I think the mistake in western culture today is to separate ethics and philosophy. And the point you made is a good example. Any ethic that renders life absurd should be scrutinized carefully.

Life is ultimately absurd from the stand point that it comes from eternal non-life and dies into eternal non-life - essentially a meaningless vapor, but that doesn't mean we can't find meaning right now in the moment as the vapor exists. But this is a good reason why people believe in an everlasting God, because that would mean life isn't ultimately absurd.

 

[FireDragon76]

Life is ultimately absurd from the stand point that it comes from eternal non-life and dies into eternal non-life - essentially a meaningless vapor, but that doesn't mean we can't find meaning right now in the moment as the vapor exists.

That's good enough for many people. In fact, some people find it more inspiring to live fully in every moment. That is what practices like Zen are about.

But this is a good reason why people believe in an everlasting God, because that would mean life isn't ultimately absurd.

It's a bad reason, actually.

 

[Chriliman]

That's good enough for many people. In fact, some people find it more inspiring to live fully in every moment. That is what practices like Zen are about.

Yea, but do they ignore the reality of death?

It's a bad reason, actually.

How so? I'll admit it's a very faith based reason, but not necessarily bad, especially if we can't really know what happens(if anything) after death right now.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yea, but do they ignore the reality of death?

There are alot of philosophical responses to the problem of death that are alternatives to the Christian religious explanation.

At any rate, the more one focuses on the present moment, the less one is troubled by the prospect of death. I am less troubled by the prospect of death than the idea that many people are never truly alive in the first place.

I don't really see how belief in God gives inherent meaning to life. It only gives meaning to you because you were raised in a culture saturated with Christian imagery and mythos.

 

[Chriliman]

There are alot of philosophical responses to the problem of death that are alternatives to the Christian religious explanation.

I’m not saying there isn’t, I’m just saying we must either believe meaning is ultimately finite and can only be enjoyed in the now and there won’t always be a now to enjoy, like a vapor or there will always be a now to enjoy because of everlasting life(God).

At any rate, the more one focuses on the present moment, the less one is troubled by the prospect of death. I am less troubled by the prospect of death than the idea that many people are never truly alive in the first place.

I’m also troubled by both prospects, but I don’t really fear death either. I do wonder sometimes if I’m living my life to the fullest tho.

I don't really see how belief in God gives inherent meaning to life. It only gives meaning to you because you were raised in a culture saturated with Christian imagery and mythos.

I’m not saying that either. Belief in finite meaning gives inherent meaning to life as well, it’s just that the meaning can’t last forever, that’s all I’m saying.