Understanding Objective Morality

[2PhiloVoid]

No, a notary public office and such would have authority based on common understanding of what that entails, the same way that we'd consider a notarized contract signed by both people valid in application even if one person doesn't like it

And what does that entail, precisely? That creating a piece of paper with Bob's name on it and his notary public stamp actually "means" something all on its own?

 

[durangodawood]

And what does that entail, precisely? That creating a piece of paper with Bob's name on it and his notary public stamp actually "means" something all on its own?

You mean it could be a forgery?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You mean it could be a forgery?

No, I mean there is a regress of levels of legal authority implied ........ which keeps us looking up, up, up through the hierarchy of authority and power for the [supposed] 'end(s)' of the moral force that is [supposed] to be behind any level of legal thought and application.

So, as far as the OP is concerned, Bob has some explaining to do to Jane.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Objectively, for that person. Which, coincidentally, still makes it subjective.

All morality is ultimately subjective. But you can make an objective morality if you decide what the goal of your morality will be. For example if you have a goal of "well being" as the goal for morality as many do, you can objectively evaluate your actions in regards to that goal. Decide what the best action is that most aligns with the goal. Christians do the same thing when they decide that actions that agree with biblical teachings is the goal for their morality. The bible is a subjective standard either created by god or people.

That's kind of my point. All morality is subjective in nature, so the debate is a little useless in that regard. Although, I think whether or not God's morality is subjective would be up for debate...since, in the context of Christianity, there is only one God. Being the head honcho and all, I suppose that would make his word law above all else.

The morality of the bible is subjective. God of the bible can and has changed his moral actions depending on the situation. That is subjective.

 

[durangodawood]

No, I mean there is a regress of levels of legal authority implied ........ which keeps us looking up, up, up through the hierarchy of authority and power for the [supposed] 'end(s)' of the moral force that is [supposed] to be behind any level of legal thought and application.

So, as far as the OP is concerned, Bob has some explaining to do to Jane.

Why is it Bob's job to explain the whole concept of legal ownership to Jane? Thats what the state is for.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's an interesting question to look closer into, 'objective and subjective'.

I just did a little thought experiment (which I've done before long ago). About trying ascertain some objective aspects of morality.

Consider first the fact: we have a nature, built into our genetics, the characteristics of our human nature as determined by the genes, and those are physically real. The characteristics that all humans then share from this genome have an objective quality, in that they are fixed real attributes. Some of the basic characteristics include a drive to find and eat food, and a drive to reproduce. We have an inbuilt objective set of goals, which are various things needed to survive, live, reproduce.

These drives etc. are not a good standard for our morality. Not all people have them basing our morality just on our needs will bring misery for some in my opinion.

Next, it's not hard to then find out by experience whether certain rules of living -- laws -- support or work against those inbuilt objective goals.

Example: Do not murder. If this is broken it degrades our accomplishing our goals. If it is followed, it allows a chance to accomplish our goals.

If our goal is to survive or reproduce then murder may be a moral action in some circumstances.

With some logic and experience or careful thought experiment based on experience, one can see (or test) whether various rules/laws work well.

Example: Do not steal or defraud. What if everyone followed this law? What if most people broke this law?

A way to test any law/principle in thought experiment is available: Consider 2 alternative situations: If people widely followed the candidate law, would that then aid/help accomplish our innate goals, or would that work against our innate goals?

The problem is that people can have differnt opinions on how to meet our "innate" goals. Some will see theft as an action worthy of accomplishing our goal of eating.

If people following the rule/law aids accomplishing our objective set of innate goals, and if breaking it harms our innate set of goals, then we have an law that objectively supports objective goals.

I disagree that all will find keeping these laws moral if they are our standard for morality.

Next, we can learn by reflecting on history that human cooperation is very effective for accomplishing our mutual objective innate goals also. Groups that cooperate thrive over those that do not.

Really? There are many examples of people in power thriving while most others suffer.

With time and effort you could even see, I found, the objective morality then in the summary of the intent of law as Christ stated it:
"In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law..." (Matthew chapter 7)

This does not address our personal desires.

A better moral goal is the most well being for all and the most flourish for all. If this is our goal murder, theft, rape etc. is morally wrong.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I want to agree...but, wouldn't the fact that it's based on Jane's 'goal' make it subjective? Especially if her 'goal' is different from other people's 'goal's.

The main goal is subjective. Her actions compared to her goal can be objectively evaluated by comparing it to her goal.

Also, objective morality is referring to a universal set of unarguable rules/concepts that are not unique to one person. That's the point of it being 'objective'.

This is absolute morality. Which I don't believe exists.

 

[Halbhh]

A better moral goal is the most well being for all and the most flourish for all.

That's exactly the standard I used there.

:=)

So, there seems to have been a lack of communication then.

You have to try to just assume I'm using normal, common standards. Unless I explicitly say I'm not. If I say something clearly different, like saying my standard is only one person does well and all the rest go to hell, then you could tell me I should aim instead to find what is best for "the most well being for all and the most flourish for all".

Otherwise, assume it. It's so normal, and reasonable, and...well, who doesn't use that standard?

I wonder if now that you know that's how I was reasoning above, that was the basic standard being used through the entire process....does that help reframe it or make it more clear? Please kindly (if you can), just assume that and reread with more sympathy.

Sympathetic reading. As if I were you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why is it Bob's job to explain the whole concept of legal ownership to Jane? Thats what the state is for.

Well, if Bob wants Jane to "believe" with him that he actually "owns" the land in question, then he'll need to do a little explaining, especially if she's foreign to the social situation she's in where Bob has been residing for (I guess) the longest time.

As for "the state," well, you've just added additional grist for my mill. Do we want to say that Bob gets his legal and moral authority from the state by which he'll make a claim to Jane that she needs to abide by? And then, from whence comes the state's authority and its moral right to assert that authority? It's own?

 

[Halbhh]

Well, if Bob wants Jane to "believe" with him that he actually "owns" the land in question, then he'll need to do a little explaining, especially if she's foreign to the social situation she has where Bob has been residing for (I guess) the longest time.

As for "the state," well, you've just added additional grist for my mill. Do we want to say that Bob gets his legal and moral authority from the state by which he'll make a claim to Jane that she needs to abide by? And then, from whence comes the state's authority and it's moral right to assert that authority? It's own?

Hey guy, how's it going today?

Got a small favor to ask -- I know it's reasonable no one may have read post #7, since I wrote more than a couple paragraphs, but if you would, take a gander at the first 2-3 paragraphs and give me some feedback. I don't want to write in such a way that it's not communicating well, nor do I want to put people off in some other way I don't notice in that kind of storyline post. What would make it more readable?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's exactly the standard I used there.

:=)

So, there seems to have been a lack of communication then.

Maybe, this is what you said:

Consider first the fact: we have a nature, built into our genetics, the characteristics of our human nature as determined by the genes, and those are physically real. The characteristics that all humans then share from this genome have an objective quality, in that they are fixed real attributes. Some of the basic characteristics include a drive to find and eat food, and a drive to reproduce. We have an inbuilt objective set of goals, which are various things needed to survive, live, reproduce.

From that I took that our actions need to be examined based on our drive for food, reproduction etc. These are the goals you stated not well being. If you are looking to base a morality on well being and flourishing then I don't understand how satisfying our innate drives help that?

You have to try to just assume I'm using normal, common standards. Unless I explicitly say I'm not. If I say something clearly different, like saying my standard is only one person does well and all the rest go to hell, then you could tell me I should aim instead to find what is best for "the most well being for all and the most flourish for all".

No, you need to state what your goals are and not let people assume what you mean. Christians that use the bible as their moral standard do not use well being as their standard.

Otherwise, assume it.

It's so normal, and reasonable, and...well, who doesn't use that standard?

Many don't, as I stated above.

I wonder if now that you know that's how I was reasoning above, that was the basic standard being used through the entire process....does that help reframe it or make it more clear? Please kindly (if you can), just assume that and reread with more sympathy.

Sympathetic reading. As if I were you.

I think that if your standard is well being then you should just state that. Which you did not in your post I quoted above. It is not a problem now that I know what you mean.

As I stated above, how does our innate drives help us with a moral standard of well being?

 

[Speedwell]

Well, if Bob wants Jane to "believe" with him that he actually "owns" the land in question, then he'll need to do a little explaining, especially if she's foreign to the social situation she has where Bob has been residing for (I guess) the longest time.

As for "the state," well, you've just added additional grist for my mill. Do we want to say that Bob gets his legal and moral authority from the state by which he'll make a claim to Jane that she needs to abide by? And then, from whence comes the state's authority and it's moral right to assert that authority? It's own?

In this country the right of the state to enact and enforce laws comes from the people of the society it governs. The "moral" issue is that one ought, in general, to cooperate with the legal framework thus erected by the state in order to insure a safe and orderly society, a desired moral outcome.

In this case, we don't know yet whether the dispute between Jane and Bob rises to the level of a moral issue. Right now, based on the information we have, it's still a legal and procedural issue. Are Bob's papers legitimate? Does he have a plausible claim of title to the land? Has Jane lived on the land long enough to claim a right of title by adverse possession? All of these issues can be resolved in an orderly way within the framework of the law. The moral question then arises only if one of the parties resorts to fraud or other criminal means to secure title to the land.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey guy, how's it going today?

Got a small favor to ask -- I know it's reasonable no one may have read post #7, since I wrote more than a couple paragraphs, but if you would, take a gander at the first 2-3 paragraphs and give me some feedback. I don't want to write in such a way that it's not communicating well, nor do I want to put people off in some other way I don't notice in that kind of storyline post. What would make it more readable?

Ok, I read it. It seems thoughtful to me. The only caveats I'd tuck into it would be that Jane will need to explain to Bob about her Georgism if she wants him to 'sign on' to her own social philosophy. At the same time, since the OP is left open to various social ideologies, it all up for grabs ... and whose Will is decided will, in the end, be evidence by whichever of the two--Bob or Jane--can, if possible, get the other to subscribe to his/her point of view.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In this country the right of the state to enact and enforce laws comes from the people of the society it governs. The "moral" issue is that one ought, in general, to cooperate with the legal framework thus erected by the state in order to insure a safe and orderly society, a desired moral outcome.

In this case, we don't know yet whether the dispute between Jane and Bob rises to the level of a moral issue. Right now, based on the information we have, it's still a legal and procedural issue. Are Bob's papers legitimate? Does he have a plausible claim of title to the land? Has Jane lived on the land long enough to claim a right of title by adverse possession? All of these issues can be resolved in an orderly way within the framework of the law. The moral question then arises only if one of the parties resorts to fraud or other criminal means to secure title to the land.

Sure. But the OP has not designated a historical time, place and/or nation, so as far as I'm concerned, in this thread, we're all floating in "hypothetical land."

As for the U.S., well, behind the curtain of Oz is the idea of the Rule of Law ... so somewhere in the hierarchical mix is some claim to moral force, of some kind, one which no one has thus far gotten to or described in this thread. So far, we've all been talking in Communo-Land.

 

[Halbhh]

Maybe, this is what you said:



From that I took that our actions need to be examined based on our drive for food, reproduction etc. These are the goals you stated not well being. If you are looking to base a morality on well being and flourishing then I don't understand how satisfying our innate drives help that?

No, you need to state what your goals are and not let people assume what you mean. Christians that use the bible as their moral standard do not use well being as their standard.

Many don't, as I stated above.

I think that if your standard is well being then you should just state that. Which you did not in your post I quoted above. It is not a problem now that I know what you mean.

As I stated above, how does our innate drives help us with a moral standard of well being?

The innate characteristics and drives -- those are pointed to just because we were discussing whether there can be any objective basis for morality.

Of course, the inherent, innate, genetic characteristics shared by all humans are...those are objective. Independent. Factual.

That's of interest, since the topic was initially: is there any objective basis at all? Answer: yes, there is a possible candidate factual objective thing: human nature -- that could possibly be used to then figure out some objective rules/morals (!).

Which is remarkable, or meaningful.

Then, read that post where I start with that, and reason from there, using the overall good of all people as a whole -- so as to see the exact technique used to attempt to get to non-subjective rules.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure. But the OP has not designated a historical time, place and/or nation, so as far as I'm concerned, in this thread, we're all floating in "hypothetical land."

Even "hypothetical land" squatters have legal rights, so there still is no moral issue. It won't be a moral issue until one of the parties to the dispute breaches the commonly agreed upon routines of land title and tenancy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Even "hypothetical land" squatters have legal rights, so there still is no moral issue. It won't be a moral issue until one of the parties to the dispute breaches the commonly agreed upon routines of land title and tenancy.

Maybe. But as far as I know, we're not talking the U.S. here. This thread isn't a "what could or should happen in the U.S." scenario, brother Speedwell.

As for myself, I'd still assert, quite apart from U.S. Law, that the Law of the U.S. is still dependent upon metaphysics at all levels.....even if it, itself, corporately, doesn't recognize that it .... does.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe. But as far as I know, we're not talking the U.S. here. This thread isn't a "what could or should happen in the U.S." scenario, brother Speedwell.

OK. And...?

As for myself, I'd still assert, quite apart from U.S. Law, that the Law of the U.S. is still dependent upon metaphysics at all levels.....even if it, itself, corporately, doesn't recognize that it .... does.

US law, any system of law, is a human construct. What is metaphysical about that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The innate characteristics and drives -- those are pointed to just because we were discussing whether there can be any objective basis for morality.

Of course, the inherent, innate, genetic characteristics shared by all humans are...those are objective. Independent. Factual.

But then you don't use that as your basis for morality so why bring it up?

Also, not all people have these drives so they are not absolute.

That's of interest, since the topic was initially: is there any objective basis at all? Answer: yes, there is a possible candidate factual objective thing: human nature -- that could possibly be used to then figure out some objective rules/morals (!).

Which is remarkable, or meaningful.

Can you explain how this matters if you base your morality on well being and not this "objective" standard as you believe?

Then, read that post where I start with that, and reason from there, using the overall good of all people as a whole -- so as to see the exact technique used to attempt to get to non-subjective rules.

You can't. My understanding of what you said is there are innate drives that we can say are objective and can derive morals from but then your actual standard is well being or something like that. I don't see how you got from innate drives to well being as your standard.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK. And...?

US law, any system of law, is a human construct. What is metaphysical about that?

Yes, any system of law is (mostly) constructed by human beings, but there is the separate discussion about the extent to which any system of law may still "reside" metaphysically within a higher cosmic (or religious) state or set of truths, some of which may be recognized by whichever "law makers" we choose to identify and scrutinize.

In the U.S., the Rule of Law is inherent within the various state legal constructs, at the ultimate level; but in Communist Law, the law is seen as being purely "an instrument of men" as they act corporately or as append-ages of the state.... in that latter scenario, as you may already know, there is no higher moral authority than 'man.'

But again, in this thread, as it pertains to the OP, I don't think we're talking about a Bob and Jane who lives in either the U.S. or in any communist nation. If we want to get into the nitty-gritty of all of that kind of modern legal and moral scenario, then that is probably best done elsewhere, and with the accompanying professional literature to back up the discussion in all directions.