It seems like this has been much debated subject lately, so I wanted everyone who argue for or against have a look here for the meaning behind objective morality for insight.
First of all, theres no point in arguing definitions, if someone argues that morality is one thing and someone else another, then its not going anywhere, just invent new words so you can distinguish between what is meant.
Objectivity is one of the ambigous words:
1. Epistemic - independent of perspective or prejudice
2. Metaphysical - existence independent of consciousness
I have seen a lot of misunderstanding based on that it is thought to be epistemic, but there's a naturalistic fallacy in this, Hume's is-ought problem.
- It is not possible to infere that something is moral from that something is natural [Moore]
- It is not possible to infere that you ought to do something, from something that is. [Hume]
For instance
I am starved, therefore I ought to eat - incorrect
I am starved, and I ought to survive, therefore I ought to eat - correct
Anyways, it is considered to be metaphysical, and we need to make the following assertions:
1. We have free will, which means we can choose rationally
2. The soul is immortal
3. God exists (teleology of good, world order, distinction between good and evil, punishment of the wicked and reward of the righteous)
Definitions:
Free will = ability to choose independently of circumstances.
soul = a being capable of epistemic and rational functions = consciousness
immortal = in this sense not divisible
Further clarification of the assertions:
A simplified game theory: either polytheism [I took the freedom of definining this term] or monotheism are true:
a god is a spiritual being = will + power
in polytheism all powers are played out against each other, resulting in in a "draw" (compare: Buddhistic emptiness, Stoic fatalism, moral nihilism)
in monotheism the resultant power is not zero, ie there is one succesfull teological strategy.
This is equivalent with the postulate of the existence of:
The thing in itself [Plato] - End in itself/Prime mover [Aristoteles] - Ding an Sich/Noumena [Kant]
Ought implies Can - Thus we need to assert monotheism - an intention can succeed.
Death of consciousness is a cop out to not take responsibility, we need to assert that what you sow is what you reap.
In fact there is a more compact metaphysical assertion:
You can choose between good and evil.
On to objective morality:
There are still few alternatives after weeding out subjectivistic ethics:
Consequentialism (Utilitarianism, Egoism, Contractualism etc..)
Deonotology (Kant)
I could go into detail on consequentialism, but I'll dismiss on epistemological basis:
Consequentialism asserts that objectivity in ethics is achieved trough empirical testability.
Lets introduce another dichotomy: means and end.
Consequentialism is basically the idea that given an end, we choose the means that have the best consequences.
We can keep this mechanism of choice in mind, but if it violates the intent then the whole theory becomes pointless.
In effect consequentialism becomes a means to exercise morality, and has a no effect on rational choice.
The only way out is to study the concept of duty (Kant)
The categorical imperative states: Act according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
Note that it is formulated so that the act (means) should not violate the will (intention,end). This is the case because it is not possible to verify whether an act was intended as a means to another end or not, ie intention cannot be empirically tested (note visible/invisible dichotomy regarding biblical faith)
The universalizability principle: The will legislates universal law, such that everyone act according to (without causing some sort of contradiction)
There are a couple of other formulations:
The kingdom of ends formulation: Act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends
Humanity formulation: Treat everyone as ends, not merely as means. (If this is violated, then human rational will is also violated)
My personal paraphrase: Act as if you will nothing else.
Finally, despite I rely a lot on Kantian morality, I would like to fall back on the Golden Rule: treat others as you want to be treated. This law unifies the object of duty and the object of christian love. And no, this is not Ti t for Tat in the prisoners dilemma, there is no empirical basis for this law.
Plato's distinction between composite/atom is another good one: The object of morality is often thought of as life = unity = indivisibility = consistency = transcendental = necessity, while immorality is related with death = division = separation = contradiction = phenomenal = contingency. One can wonder whether the world is digital or analog, consists of indivisibles or can be divided into ever diminishing components. The issue is in fact metaphysical, but consider this: we experience decay and tendency toward thermodynamical entropy, diminishing utility, diminishing information. No matter what you do, it results in decrease of utility, never increase. However local decrease in entropy seem to be possible - metaphysically. While all perishable composites decomposes around us, we shall raise inperishable. And death shall be swallowed up, because death is the idea that all matter is infinitely divisible.
First of all, theres no point in arguing definitions, if someone argues that morality is one thing and someone else another, then its not going anywhere, just invent new words so you can distinguish between what is meant.
Objectivity is one of the ambigous words:
1. Epistemic - independent of perspective or prejudice
2. Metaphysical - existence independent of consciousness
I have seen a lot of misunderstanding based on that it is thought to be epistemic, but there's a naturalistic fallacy in this, Hume's is-ought problem.
- It is not possible to infere that something is moral from that something is natural [Moore]
- It is not possible to infere that you ought to do something, from something that is. [Hume]
For instance
I am starved, therefore I ought to eat - incorrect
I am starved, and I ought to survive, therefore I ought to eat - correct
Anyways, it is considered to be metaphysical, and we need to make the following assertions:
1. We have free will, which means we can choose rationally
2. The soul is immortal
3. God exists (teleology of good, world order, distinction between good and evil, punishment of the wicked and reward of the righteous)
Definitions:
Free will = ability to choose independently of circumstances.
soul = a being capable of epistemic and rational functions = consciousness
immortal = in this sense not divisible
Further clarification of the assertions:
A simplified game theory: either polytheism [I took the freedom of definining this term] or monotheism are true:
a god is a spiritual being = will + power
in polytheism all powers are played out against each other, resulting in in a "draw" (compare: Buddhistic emptiness, Stoic fatalism, moral nihilism)
in monotheism the resultant power is not zero, ie there is one succesfull teological strategy.
This is equivalent with the postulate of the existence of:
The thing in itself [Plato] - End in itself/Prime mover [Aristoteles] - Ding an Sich/Noumena [Kant]
Ought implies Can - Thus we need to assert monotheism - an intention can succeed.
Death of consciousness is a cop out to not take responsibility, we need to assert that what you sow is what you reap.
In fact there is a more compact metaphysical assertion:
You can choose between good and evil.
On to objective morality:
There are still few alternatives after weeding out subjectivistic ethics:
Consequentialism (Utilitarianism, Egoism, Contractualism etc..)
Deonotology (Kant)
I could go into detail on consequentialism, but I'll dismiss on epistemological basis:
Consequentialism asserts that objectivity in ethics is achieved trough empirical testability.
Lets introduce another dichotomy: means and end.
Consequentialism is basically the idea that given an end, we choose the means that have the best consequences.
We can keep this mechanism of choice in mind, but if it violates the intent then the whole theory becomes pointless.
In effect consequentialism becomes a means to exercise morality, and has a no effect on rational choice.
The only way out is to study the concept of duty (Kant)
The categorical imperative states: Act according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
Note that it is formulated so that the act (means) should not violate the will (intention,end). This is the case because it is not possible to verify whether an act was intended as a means to another end or not, ie intention cannot be empirically tested (note visible/invisible dichotomy regarding biblical faith)
The universalizability principle: The will legislates universal law, such that everyone act according to (without causing some sort of contradiction)
There are a couple of other formulations:
The kingdom of ends formulation: Act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends
Humanity formulation: Treat everyone as ends, not merely as means. (If this is violated, then human rational will is also violated)
My personal paraphrase: Act as if you will nothing else.
Finally, despite I rely a lot on Kantian morality, I would like to fall back on the Golden Rule: treat others as you want to be treated. This law unifies the object of duty and the object of christian love. And no, this is not Ti t for Tat in the prisoners dilemma, there is no empirical basis for this law.
Plato's distinction between composite/atom is another good one: The object of morality is often thought of as life = unity = indivisibility = consistency = transcendental = necessity, while immorality is related with death = division = separation = contradiction = phenomenal = contingency. One can wonder whether the world is digital or analog, consists of indivisibles or can be divided into ever diminishing components. The issue is in fact metaphysical, but consider this: we experience decay and tendency toward thermodynamical entropy, diminishing utility, diminishing information. No matter what you do, it results in decrease of utility, never increase. However local decrease in entropy seem to be possible - metaphysically. While all perishable composites decomposes around us, we shall raise inperishable. And death shall be swallowed up, because death is the idea that all matter is infinitely divisible.
