The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[durangodawood]

1. Let´s just assume for sake of the argument that this assertion is accurate (and that the opposite - a society where noone is afraid..., will not fail and be replaced - is accurate, as well).
I am not seeing a moral proposition yet.
So what would be the moral proposition that follows from these observations? IOW: Can you bridge the is-ought gap without adding some subjectivity?

2. Well, to be precise, some derive from objective facts and some don´t.

3. Now, for those that do, how does deriving a moral preceipt or proposition from an objective fact render the preceipt or proposition objective?

4. Things fall down. That´s an objective fact. I derive from this objective fact the moral proposition that we shouldn´t keep things from falling down. Is my moral proposition objective?

1. The moral proposition thats been derived from this fact is its bad to murder your neighbor.

2. Well, "enduring" is a pretty broad notion. So while "being gay is bad" has been around for an awful duration, I think "dont murder your neighbor" will stick around for the really long haul.

3. I dont quite claim the proposition itself is objective. When I talk about objective morality, I mean morality thats derived from objective facts of human behavior in the world. The objective moral itself isnt a demonstrable object like a graven tablet. But it is objective in its derivation and in the sense that its a component of human behavior, which can be studied in an objective fashion just like any branch of animal behavior.

4. Your moral proposition sounds arbitrary in that it serves no human purpose I can imagine. I do think some moral propositions are essentially arbitrary. They may serve as markers of group identity.

 

[Ken-1122]

Your definition of objectivity here isn't simply what is generally meant by objectivity.

I was going by the dictionary definition of objectivity

We aren't talking about empirically demonstrable morality; but whether there is an innate right and wrong.

No there is no “innate” right or wrong, right and wrong are just judgment labels we attach to human behavior; they only exist in the context of human thought.

I would also agree that simply "God said it, that is what makes something right or wrong" is a bad argument. It's also not the mainstream Christian position.

For it not being mainstream, I hear an awful lot of Christians making that claim.

Christian philosophers have wrestled with the Euthyphro Dilemma for centuries; the mainstream Christian consensus posits that God is in His own Being innately good:

Good by whose standards? Mine? Yours? What one person calls good may be bad for someone else. It is impossible for God to be good according to everybody in every situation because everybody has their own version of what is good and it varies a little from person to person.

Goodness is therefore intrinsic to God's Being. God cannot act contrary to God's Self, and thus what God commands is good, not because He commands it, but because the objective quality of Goodness is identical with God's Being. Thus there is neither a goodness which God is Himself subject to personally; neither is goodness the arbitrary decision making process of God. Instead, God being the Good, and the Most Sublime, is Goodness itself. God could not, therefore, have ever said, "Thou shalt murder" rather than "Thou shalt not murder", because "Thou shalt murder" would be contrary to the intrinsic quality of goodness which is innate to God's Being itself, of which there is nothing greater or above. An objective standard of goodness, therefore, exists because goodness has objective existence--its objectivity is in that it actually exists in reality not just in the abstract; namely God.

Sounds kinda like a fancy way of saying “God said it, thats what makes it right or wrong” to me. The words are different, but the end results are the same. I understand you are Christian, so all of that makes perfect sense to you; and I ain’t trying to take anything away from you; but I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, we have two different concepts of what morality is; mine is based on secular ideas, yours in your concept of God.

Objectivity, here, does not mean "can be empirically demonstrated", but rather "exists in fact".

-CryptoLutheran

If it exists as a fact, it can be empirically demonstrated.

 

[Ken-1122]

But why not?

-CryptoLutheran

Because it will cause people to not trust you, it can cause harm, and a lot of other stuff that isn't good.

 

[quatona]

1. The moral proposition thats been derived from this fact is its bad to murder your neighbor.

I always think this is a poor example because "murder" is defined as wrongful killing. It´s like saying bad isn´t good.
So, if the proposition is "it´s bad to kill your neighbour" - what´s objective about the way you derived it?

2. Well, "enduring" is a pretty broad notion. So while "being gay is bad" has been around for an awful duration, I think "dont murder your neighbor" will stick around for the really long haul.

That´s because it´s a tautology.

3. I dont quite claim the proposition itself is objective. When I talk about objective morality, I mean morality thats derived from objective facts of human behavior in the world. The objective moral itself isnt a demonstrable object like a graven tablet. But it is objective in its derivation and in the sense that its a component of human behavior, which can be studied in an objective fashion just like any branch of animal behavior.

So a moral proposition is objective because someone holds it? That sounds like an odd terminology to me.
I´m wondering: When two persons look at the same facts and derive different or even opposed moral propositions from it, do you call both moralities "objective"?

4. Your moral proposition sounds arbitrary in that it serves no human purpose I can imagine.

So it all depends on your, durangodawood´s, imagination?

 

[durangodawood]

...So it all depends on your, durangodawood´s, imagination?

Is this the style of argument we're going to engage in?

Not interested.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If it exists as a fact, it can be empirically demonstrated.

That isn't a philosophical proposition which I share.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Because it will cause people to not trust you,

What if I'm quite good at it?

it can cause harm, and a lot of other stuff that isn't good.

Harm to who? And what stuff? And why ought that matter?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was going by the dictionary definition of objectivity

As was I,

"objective
adjective

1(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
‘historians try to be objective and impartial’
Contrasted with subjective

1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
‘a matter of objective fact’"

No there is no “innate” right or wrong, right and wrong are just judgment labels we attach to human behavior; they only exist in the context of human thought.

That seems to be the very subject of debate.

For it not being mainstream, I hear an awful lot of Christians making that claim.

I hear a lot of things by different people as well, but what qualifies as mainstream involves a matter of long-term consistency and acceptance.

Good by whose standards? Mine? Yours? What one person calls good may be bad for someone else. It is impossible for God to be good according to everybody in every situation because everybody has their own version of what is good and it varies a little from person to person.

Again, this is kind of at the heart of the debate--if there is an innate goodness then that goodness is not judged or evaluated by every individual subjectively, but by God.

Sounds kinda like a fancy way of saying “God said it, thats what makes it right or wrong” to me. The words are different, but the end results are the same. I understand you are Christian, so all of that makes perfect sense to you; and I ain’t trying to take anything away from you; but I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, we have two different concepts of what morality is; mine is based on secular ideas, yours in your concept of God.

Well, no. Because "God said it, that makes it right or wrong" would be to present it right by fiat which leaves open the matter of arbitrariness on the part of God. My argument, consistent with the position of Christian thinkers throughout history, is that what is truly Good is imbedded in the very nature of God. God therefore cannot declare a thing to be good simply by fiat, but rather only that which is consistent and resonant with God's own Being.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[quatona]

Is this the style of argument we're going to engage in?

Well, your imagination was your key criterium when you addressed my example. If you meant to say something else, feel free to clarify.
How we get to distinguish objective from not objective moral preceipts is the crucial question when it comes to your approach, after all.

Not interested.

You aren´t interested in my other points and questions, either? Ok.

 

[Ken-1122]

Honestly though, I don't entirely agree with that.

I have no problem at all with the idea that, at least in part, morality is a rather objective thingy to an extent. Or perhaps "pseudo-objective".

I'll try and explain.....

In the end, what IS morality?

Morality is the subject judgment calls we make about actions we experience

I'ld say it is some sort of "code of conduct" which doesn't exist simply for it's own sake, but rather to achieve a certain goal. That goal being a peacefull society/world where well-being, freedom and prosperity is maximized for all sentient beings.

I don't think it is quite that simple. Each person has their own personal moral code that varies from person to person, and the reasons they will site for the code will vary as well

I think it's safe to say that that is the entire "point" of morality. To ensure social cohesion, to ensure the existence of a society where "life is good", where love and solidarity outrank hate and selfishness.

You seem to act as if morality were a single thing that everybody agrees to; those are laws. Morality is individual

Every action / decision we as members of a society engage in, ultimately have impact on other people or even the entire group. When making moral judgements, essentially the question we ask is what that impact is and if it benefits the "moral goals" of a group or if it is detrimental to it.

Not everybody is going to ask those questions concerning their moral code. it sounds like you are confusing social laws with morality.

This is why stealing is universally seen as "wrong" in general. Because it is detrimental to societal concepts like peace, love, solidarity, respect, rights of property, freedom, etc.

Most people don't think it out that way, most say stealing is wrong because they don't want it to happen to them.

So essentially, whenever we make a moral judgement, we engage in rational reasoning: a rational evaluation of the facts followed by a factual analysis of its implications, impact and eventual consequences.

That, by itself, is about as an objective reasoning process as you can get.

That would be the case if the reasoning were consistent from person to person; it is not. The fact that such reasoning varies from person to person shows out is subjective.

We have a starting point and a desired end-point. And wheter or not a certain action sets us on the road to that end-point is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of demonstrable fact.

Stealing, raping, enslavement, murder,... none of those things factually sets us on a path to a peaceful and loving society. To me, that makes them as objectively wrong as it gets.

The only thing you could argue here to not be "objective", is the desired end-point. But even there, I'ld dare to call that debatable.

Do you really believe this applies to all people concerning their individual moral codes? Again; I think you are confusing laws with morality.

In any case, assuming we all agree on the desired end-point.... then the road towards that end-point is rather objective. Because, as you say, it is a matter of "demonstrable fact" in terms of impact etc.

This would be the case if there were agreement of the desired end-point. There is not.

Agreed.

However imo, "objective morality" doesn't mean that X is true "at all times in all circumstances".

Yes it does; Look it up!

There's on reason why something can be reasoned/evaluated objectively, while also keeping into account circumstantial parameters. Or "context", if you will.

In order for it to be reasoned via objective means, facts would have to be involved. If facts are involved, X will be true at all times under all circumstances.

After all... when you say "x is immoral" and I ask you why.... it's not like you are going to answer "because I believe it is..."

Nope. I'm quite sure that you'll be able to actually present a reasoned and rational argument, based on facts, to motivate your moral judgement.

I may provide some facts, but most of what I provide in my rational argument will be based on beliefs, and extenuating circumstances. (subjective)

And if someone counters your argument with a better agument, I'm sure you'll change your mind instead of dogmatically sticking to your "opinion". Right?

If my argument were objective and demonstrable as true, (objective) nobody would be able to provide a better argument

So, in summary....
I say morality is both objective and subjective.

The subjective part, is the desired end-goal (to an extent).
The objective part is the process of how you come to a moral evaluation/judgement, given the facts and the desired end-goal.

This is why I'm fine with the term "pseudo-objective".

 

[Ken-1122]

The enduring (as opposed the the ones that are completely culturally contingent) morals are based on objective facts.
For a really simple example:
Objective fact: a society where everyone is afraid of being murdered in their homes will fail and be replaced.

So what actions will cause everyone to be afraid of being murdered in their own homes, and what is the moral solution to this problem? That is where the subjective comes in at.

So when I say some morals are objective, I dont mean they exist in some material form we can examine. That would be ridiculous. I mean they derive from objective facts of human living, even though they 'live' in the mind, in myths, in religion, in law, etc.

Even if all moral issues did derive from objective facts; (which I don’t agree that they do) that wouldn’t make the moral issue objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

That isn't a philosophical proposition which I share.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you know of any facts that cannot be empirically demonstrated?

 

[Ken-1122]

What if I'm quite good at it?

I suspect the end results would be the same.

Harm to who?

Harm to the person being lied to

And what stuff?

The list of stuff is too long to mention

And why ought that matter?

I suspect it would matter to the person considering lying

 

[Ken-1122]

As was I,

"objective
adjective

1(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
‘historians try to be objective and impartial’
Contrasted with subjective

1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
‘a matter of objective fact’"

Okay; going by the definition you provided.
*if we recognize usually lying is bad, but sometimes depending on the circumstances, it is better to lie than telling the truth,
*If we recognize it is usually bad to kill a person, but sometimes depending on the circumstances, it is better to kill a person than letting him live,

Does this sound like something based on facts, where opinions, and personal feelings are not considered?

seems to be the very subject of debate.

I hear a lot of things by different people as well, but what qualifies as mainstream involves a matter of long-term consistency and acceptance.

Again, this is kind of at the heart of the debate--if there is an innate goodness then that goodness is not judged or evaluated by every individual subjectively, but by God.

But a quick look in the real world, and you will see what is called “good” is judged and evaluated by every individual subjectively. This must be admitted even if you believe it is also judged by God as well.

Well, no. Because "God said it, that makes it right or wrong" would be to present it right by fiat which leaves open the matter of arbitrariness on the part of God. My argument, consistent with the position of Christian thinkers throughout history, is that what is truly Good is imbedded in the very nature of God. God therefore cannot declare a thing to be good simply by fiat, but rather only that which is consistent and resonant with God's own Being.

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah, but thats your position as a Christian. Another person who worships a different God may say what is truly Good is imbedded in the very nature of HIS God; a God that doesn’t exist, or I might say what is truly good is imbedded in the very nature of myself! How do you demonstrate that you are telling the truth, and this other guy, and myself are not?

 

[Strathos]

Do you know of any facts that cannot be empirically demonstrated?

The fact that I once got stung by a bee when I was a little kid. I know it happened but I can't prove it to you as it wasn't recorded and there were no witnesses.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you know of any facts that cannot be empirically demonstrated?

Well I believe God exists in actuality. I can't empirically demonstrate that--if in fact God exists, that would be one.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

The fact that I once got stung by a bee when I was a little kid. I know it happened but I can't prove it to you as it wasn't recorded and there were no witnesses.

But it was empirically demonstrated to you right? You don't have to be able to prove it to me.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well I believe God exists in actuality. I can't empirically demonstrate that--if in fact God exists, that would be one.

-CryptoLutheran

Then your belief in God is not based on fact, it is just a belief.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then your belief in God is not based on fact, it is just a belief.

It is not based on empirical fact. Whether it is or isn't a fact isn't something that can be determined empirically. I believe it is a fact, you do not because it isn't empirically demonstrated. Which was kind of my point here--a difference of philosophy and paradigm. And that what I believe to be an intrinsic, objectively real good is something that has actual existence, and thus an objectivity by which to measure right and wrong. My belief in an objectively real good is, yes, a belief, an article of faith; not something that can be empirically demonstrated or measured.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strathos]

But it was empirically demonstrated to you right? You don't have to be able to prove it to me.

God also empirically demonstrated His existence to me, but I doubt you will accept that.