Understanding Objective Morality

[Speedwell]

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.

It only "resides" to the extent that it is a man-made construct designed to achieve moral purposes. The law has no authority to determine what those purposes are. For the believer, secular law is not in the hierarchy of moral authority, merely a tool to achieve whatever moral outcomes are desired.

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 as corporately or as append-ages of the state.... in that scenario, as you may already know, there is no higher moral authority than 'man.'

There is no higher legal authority than man. As to moral authority, that's another question.

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.

Well, it's hard to talk about without bringing in specific examples. But even taken in the most abstract and non-specific way, I see no moral issue in the OP. If you do, perhaps you could explain it to me.

 

[Halbhh]

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.

Thanks, I'd need to make it more clear Jane did explain Georgism to Bob it seems. Once she did, I posited that Bob just rationalized it away, as convenient (lied to himself in some manner about what is good and just), and went to evil, as shown in that little story, but maybe instead the alternative scenario I wrote there 2nd, where he goes to the good instead, which of course I like better.

Do you think it was too lengthy? It probably was I guess.

Or was it instead the impediment of "Georgism", as if any of us would want to read about some economic system (even if perfect), in a forum post like this thread?

Maybe when they saw "Georgism", 98% of people would stop reading? cause they don't want a lecture, or what seems as if a lecture.

 

[Chriliman]

And I would disagree. How do we find out who’s correct if either of us could be objectively “correct”.

That depends if our objective correctness agrees or not. If it doesn't agree then either only one of us is objectively correct or neither of us.

That’s your opinion... that you haven’t provided evidence for.

If you live in a place where certain behaviors are frowned upon or illegal, then you should have some moral responsibly and either not do those things in that place, move elsewhere or lobby to have the laws changed. If you disagree, please explain because I want to understand.

 

[Halbhh]

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

Wait a second, was the writing that unclear. That was the only basis I used in that post.

It's exactly the basis I used there.

Now I think my post must have been terribly written...or you just can't get past a misimpression?

Like, bad first impression (or guess), and so, it's toast?


Ok, I'll try to write a lot clearer if I can in the future. Meantime, you've got no idea what I said there it appears. Sorry about that.

Somehow this sentence was unclear, but I can't see why yet....

"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."

Too abstract?....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It only "resides" to the extent that it is a man-made construct designed to achieve moral purposes. The law has no authority to determine what those purposes are. For the believer, secular law is not in the hierarchy of moral authority, merely a tool to achieve whatever moral outcomes are desired.

Maybe we're talking past each other here ... You came into the middle of a conversation I was having with some others, and maybe you're not seeing the trajectory I'm insinuating with those other folks, one that essentially is implying what you're saying here.

What is it you think I've been saying thus far in this thread, even if not to you? What I'm trying to do is bring in a few nuances in the social philosophy at work which many people want to ignore or want to prevent from playing a role in both legal and moral thinking. Perhaps what I'm trying to get at is something along the lines of what Pierre Schlag tried to get at in the following article, for starters:

Schlag, Pierre. "Law as the continuation of God by other means." Calif. L. Rev. 85 (1997): 427.

There is no higher legal authority than man. As to moral authority, that's another question.

As a Christian, I'd have to respectfully disagree on this point. God is both a legal authority and a moral authority, combined, and I think this is the case whether people want to acknowledge it or not. With that, I understand that various forms of legal thought will come down on the meaning and the role of the concept of "the Rule of Law" in various ways.

Well, it's hard to talk about without bringing in specific examples. But even taken in the most abstract and non-specific way, I see no moral issue in the OP. If you do, perhaps you could explain it to me.

You sound like you want me to explain it ... and if I can, that would prove to be a very long explanation, I'm afraid.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks, I'd need to make it more clear Jane did explain Georgism to Bob it seems. Once she did, I posited that Bob just rationalized it away, as convenient (lied to himself in some manner about what is good and just), and went to evil, as shown in that little story, but maybe instead the alternative scenario I wrote there 2nd, where he goes to the good instead, which of course I like better.

Do you think it was too lengthy? It probably was I guess.

Oh, I don't know if it was 'too' lengthy, but I have come to realize that on CF, often 'less is more.'

Or was it instead the impediment of "Georgism", as if any of us would want to read about some economic system (even if perfect), in a forum post like this thread?

Maybe when they saw "Georgism", 98% of people would stop reading? cause they don't want a lecture, or what seems as if a lecture.

You probably need to have a descriptive phrase or sentence in our write up that indicates what "Georgism" is. Otherwise, around here, you'll actually have to say to folks, "You need to go look this up..." Otherwise, everyone will just read it and balk since, unlike you and me, they don't share the idea that online discussion is similar to research and a journey in coming to recognize 'the truth.' No, they seem many times to think truth, if it's real, will somehow self-evidentially hit them in the face in short order. (Sometimes, I really wish it would, but social Reality doesn't seem to want to cooperate with me on that point, as is usual. )

 

[Kaon]

I want to use the term “objective” in the sense that the reality of a thing is there whether you like it or not.

Let’s consider Jane. Jane wondered across some land and decided to live there and farm it. She never purchased the land and has never considered whether it’s right or wrong to farm the land. Bob arrives and shows her documentation proving he owns the land and tells her to stop farming it.

Has Bob introduces an objective source of right and wrong for Jane to consider?

No.

The morality is subjective - based on what is thought to be most appropriate in order to continue life. Morality comes from the root word for custom - which is usually, by extension, a custom that keeps "society" going, possibly thriving, and to provide a way to maximize the life around us and for us.

In other words, I am afraid morality itself is subjective, and can never be objective. Objectivity implies impartiality, from objectivis - meaning "impersonal, unbiased".

By definition, both Jane and Bob have incredible bias - Jane's bias comes from her ignorance of how nations and kingdoms allot and handle things like land, while Bob's bias comes from his idea that his writs and laws are a standard for everyone.

 

[Kaon]

I can picture it. As Jane wanders across the land she looks up in the sky in wonder, and probably is not that aware of ordinary things around her. But, also, she has been a little scatter brained in some ways, and is also homeless, and needs a place to live. Funny enough, she has some books in a backpack. One of them is a book on Georgism, which she had learned years back.
(Georgism - Wikipedia) She kinda knows on some level that the air, the water, the land, the sky, they belong to all of us, all of humanity....

Ok, she's idealistic, but she can also read. Let's think what could happen then...

Jane remembers about Georgism and tries to teach Bob, and then he might or might not be humble enough to learn about Georgism. If Bob learns about Georgism though, it might not convince him to share the land, but instead he might make up rationalizations that seem quite rational, and he tells Jane some bad thing like "We are simple people, and we really don't feel we can welcome in all strangers, so we feel like you should move on."

Or...maybe instead Bob is vaguely Christian, and something quite different could possibly happen....

Suppose Bob remembers some things Christ said, instead.

What if that first few days, before evicting Jane, Bob pulls down the old dusty bible he hasn't read, and opens it to a gospel and starts to read. Then, something happens, and Bob starts to remember some things Christ said to us, and finds them.

Later, Bob says to Jane: "Welcome here. I was wrong to tell you you can't stay. Martha and I would love for you to become our neighbor. If you could just help with the hogs and chickens, and maybe help Martha some in the garden, we'd love to have you live here with us."

This brings up an interesting facet of the argument:

If morality is not objective (my assertion), could it be universal? Could there be a combination of customs that work together to create a better, and better (ad infinitum) morality? I think an argument could be made for universal morality, but not objective morality.

Also, you introduced spiritualism and legalism, which I think is a bit different from morality. However, if we categorize "customs" or standards, I think your case represents good basis for spiritual and legal objectivity, respectively (and, given a proper argument).

 

[durangodawood]

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?

Legal authority. I didnt say the state confers moral authority on Bob's claim.

In the USA the state gets its legal authority from the people. Thats the founders notion anyway.

 

[durangodawood]

No.

The morality is subjective - based on what is thought to be most appropriate in order to continue life. Morality comes from the root word for custom - which is usually, by extension, a custom that keeps "society" going, possibly thriving, and to provide a way to maximize the life around us and for us.

In other words, I am afraid morality itself is subjective, and can never be objective. Objectivity implies impartiality, from objectivis - meaning "impersonal, unbiased".

By definition, both Jane and Bob have incredible bias - Jane's bias comes from her ignorance of how nations and kingdoms allot and handle things like land, while Bob's bias comes from his idea that his writs and laws are a standard for everyone.

Sure, morality isnt objective in that there are rules written on every atom for us to find and share.

But its definitely correct to say that enduring morality is objectively based in that it derives from the objective facts of human well being.

 

[Kaon]

Sure, morality isnt objective in that there are rules written on every atom for us to find and share.

But its definitely correct to say that enduring morality is objectively based in that it derives from the objective facts of human well being.

What are objective facts of human well being?

For example, I may believe an objective fact of human well being is well-balanced competition, while another may believe it is full cooperation. Humans kill each other for fun, and we lie to each other for general purposes. How would we know what facts are in the first place, and who is the arbiter of facts of life?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Wait a second, was the writing that unclear. That was the only basis I used in that post.

It's exactly the basis I used there.

Now I think my post must have been terribly written...or you just can't get past a misimpression?

Like, bad first impression (or guess), and so, it's toast?


Ok, I'll try to write a lot clearer if I can in the future. Meantime, you've got no idea what I said there it appears. Sorry about that.

Somehow this sentence was unclear, but I can't see why yet....

"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."

Too abstract?....

I don't see how you equate our inbuilt objective goals with well being. I don't see how these are the same goals.

But maybe we should start over. What do you think that we should base our morality on?

 

[durangodawood]

What are objective facts of human well being?

For example, I may believe an objective fact of human well being is well-balanced competition, while another may believe it is full cooperation. Humans kill each other for fun, and we lie to each other for general purposes. How would we know what facts are in the first place, and who is the arbiter of facts of life?

You can look across times and cultures and see something like consensus on some real basics, like dont kill members of your own tribe, dont steal their stuff, respect parents, etc.

New moral assertions, like "its ok to hunt other people for sport", might get some traction for a time. But humans being humans, that kind of arrangement probably wont last long as people realize that terror and disregard for human life naturally make living in that society a bit more miserable.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What are objective facts of human well being?

For example, I may believe an objective fact of human well being is well-balanced competition, while another may believe it is full cooperation. Humans kill each other for fun, and we lie to each other for general purposes. How would we know what facts are in the first place, and who is the arbiter of facts of life?

We are, that is why discussion is required to determine what we want to base our morality on and why. Not everyone will agree on morality. I think that most would agree on some definition of well being, that we should do things to maximize well being and human flourishing for all.

 

[Halbhh]

This brings up an interesting facet of the argument:

If morality is not objective (my assertion), could it be universal? Could there be a combination of customs that work together to create a better, and better (ad infinitum) morality? I think an argument could be made for universal morality, but not objective morality.

Also, you introduced spiritualism and legalism, which I think is a bit different from morality. However, if we categorize "customs" or standards, I think your case represents good basis for spiritual and legal objectivity, respectively (and, given a proper argument).

To me personally, nothing is at stake at all about whether there can be an objective morality (something I never thought worth much discussing before until today, but in the past I just used quickly some insights based on some things that are known aspects of human nature to think about the outcomes of varied laws). That's a "universal" (to humans) thing. So, the 'universal' morality I was talking about in this thread lately above today is based on our needs/attributes, and their fulfillment. (both of which could be investigated in a way that is objective). So, while I don't care a lot what label people put, objective or universal or practical or useful or fantastical, I more want to hear from people about their reaction to the whole of post #28, for those interested. It's partly how an person willing to look, could find out some key things about what is good in Law, (and of course that will then be also interesting vis-a-vis Christ's words about law in Matthew 7 and elsewhere).

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe we're talking past each other here ... You came into the middle of a conversation I was having with some others, and maybe you're not seeing the trajectory I'm insinuating with those other folks, one that essentially is implying what you're saying here.

What is it you think I've been saying thus far in this thread, even if not to you? What I'm trying to do is bring in a few nuances in the social philosophy at work which many people want to ignore or want to prevent from playing a role in both legal and moral thinking. Perhaps what I'm trying to get at is something along the lines of what Pierre Schlag tried to get at in the following article, for starters:

Schlag, Pierre. "Law as the continuation of God by other means." Calif. L. Rev. 85 (1997): 427.

As a Christian, I'd have to respectfully disagree on this point. God is both a legal authority and a moral authority, combined, and I think this is the case whether people want to acknowledge it or not. With that, I understand that various forms of legal thought will come down on the meaning and the role of the concept of "the Rule of Law" in various ways.

Yes, I think I understand what you.re getting at, I just don't agree with it.

You sound like you want me to explain it ... and if I can, that would prove to be a very long explanation, I'm afraid.

The reason I asked is that you seemed (and be sure to correct me if I'm wrong) to be arguing from the position that Jane had no moral right to her tenancy.

 

[Kaon]

You can look across times and cultures and see something like consensus on some real basics, like dont kill members of your own tribe, dont steal their stuff, respect parents, etc.

But, some people think it is right to kill someone that, say, slept with their wife. Consensus is a horrible barometer for truth, and cultural history does not imply impartiality just because it may have worked.

New

moral assertions, like "its ok to hunt other people for sport", might get some traction for a time. But humans being humans, that kind of arrangement probably wont last long as people realize that terror and disregard for human life naturally make living in that society a bit more miserable.

Some people love terror, and chaos - they thrive on it. How are they any less moral than someone who likes order, with respect to an impartial application of customs? This is why totems, tribalism and community is popular and extolled, but it still doesn't mean it is impartial. Some tribes eat humans, some tribes consider cannibalism to be disturbingly immoral. Some tribes eat bacon-wrapped shrimp for fun, others consider it an abomination. There is no objectivity in morality; morality is simply agreed-upon, community-establish customs that allegedly allow the community thrive and live.

Within those communities, there is a case that can be made for universal morality to be made, like a Western society condemning murder.

 

[Halbhh]

I don't see how you equate our inbuilt objective goals with well being. I don't see how these are the same goals.

But maybe we should start over. What do you think that we should base our morality on?

Briefly, well being is thought to be more or less the fulfillment of our needs, including first the basic needs, and then also the more psychological ones also. Long ago, someone competently (and famously) laid those out in a systematic way. Maslow --

https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
It's a heirarchy as I remember (from very long ago off the top of my head, so people may want to check for themselves) in that a person needs the lower level needs met first, and they must be met, in order to be able to focus on the higher level needs.

In my view, these are objective. (read on to see why I think so)

Now, obviously the physiological needs in level 1 are clearly objective facts: without air you die, without shelter you could die of hypothermia, etc.

But, in psychology, it's been found that a lot more than these are consistent facts of human nature: we really do have something called 'fear' (it's not an epiphenomenon thing, but a basic innate instinctual reaction) -- and it's a real, built-in response to perceived physical or social danger, etc.

Objective. Factual.

So, to me see, several levels of this pyramid are already known objective factual stuff. I learned how and why long ago for the first 3 levels, and then read extensively also on the top 2 levels, so to me personally they are objectively factual also (!). To me, long ago, a large amount of diverse reading already established to me these are fixed, reliable objective facts of human nature. Someone else might need to discover that on their own.

So, given what are to me the objective facts of human nature, reliable facts of what is needed for well being....

Then post #28.

 

[Halbhh]

What are objective facts of human well being?

See just above.

 

[Kaon]

We are, that is why discussion is required to determine what we want to base our morality on and why. Not everyone will agree on morality. I think that most would agree on some definition of well being, that we should do things to maximize well being and human flourishing for all.

When you say "we are," what do you mean?

Consensus may work, but it is a horrible barometer for truth. It does not come from impartiality, so it isn't objective. I am not arguing certain moralities and their effectiveness, I am just saying morality can never be objective.

I think, in the context of the OP (and some others' explanations), it is clear we can learn from each other, but we should also we open to realizing our way is not the way - it just works.