Understanding Objective Morality

[Halbhh]

Interesting different issue. Consider this version of Maslow's hierarchy:

Since a person cannot generally do the higher levels well (or at length) in the hierarchy without having the lower levels met.....

....then when it bothers you that someone on the internet or in person doesn't have:
lack of prejudice
or
acceptance of facts

Might it be they need some lower levels needs met first. That's what the idea is above.

We'd expect so. Therefore the best help against prejudice or obstinacy about facts isn't argument.

Not argument. Doesn't meet needs....

But the only real help is....need meeting in various levels under that top level. You might be someone that can help them.

 

[Kaon]

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

I think this is why labels are important.

If you are to say what you said coming from the perspective the idea of "objective morality" comes from the Most High - I am not disputing that at all. However, I would say that is not morality, since morality applies primarily to entities that don't die.

What you are describing is gnosis - which implies divine or specific knowledge (as well as a much greater measure of impartiality).

Humans cannot be impartial because we are, by definition, partial to every facet of abstraction and creation we think affects our lives. That is why some of us follow philosophy or religion - to attempt to be more impartial (since exercising some impartiality is considered a part of wisdom). Marie Antoinette telling the proletariat to eat brioche was an example of this heavy partiality on both sides. On one hand, Antoinette was so ignorant of what her people had to endure that she assumed they had the resources (eggs, and butter) to make such cakes when they didn't have bare bread. The proletariat partiality came in the assumption that the Crown would care for them - maybe forever. The result was tragic, even though it came from an allegedly good place (a Catholic monarchy) partly because none of it was objective, and all of it was subjective.

 

[Halbhh]

I think this is why labels are important.

If you are to say what you said coming from the perspective the idea of "objective morality" comes from the Most High - I am not disputing that at all. However, I would say that is not morality, since morality applies primarily to entities that don't die.

What you are describing is gnosis - which implies divine or specific knowledge (as well as a much greater measure of impartiality).

Humans cannot be impartial because we are, by definition, partial to every facet of abstraction and creation we think affects our lives. That is why some of us follow philosophy or religion - to attempt to be more impartial (since exercising some impartiality is considered a part of wisdom). Marie Antoinette telling the proletariat to eat brioche was an example of this heavy partiality on both sides. On one hand, Antoinette was so ignorant of what her people had to endure that she assumed they had the resources (eggs, and butter) to make such cakes when they didn't have bare bread. The proletariat partiality came in the assumption that the Crown would care for them - maybe forever. The result was tragic, even though it came from an allegedly good place (a Catholic monarchy) partly because none of it was objective, and all of it was subjective.

Yes, she misjudged what level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs they really needed.
(as it is all really common sense what Maslow laid out, which she wouldn't have the same kind of as they)
(see post 81 just above also)

 

[Kaon]

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.

I get this, and my disagreement with your idea that this is objective is not to dismiss how much of what you are posting I actually agree with.

I would just say morality, by definition, cannot be objective because customs are not objective, and humans are not objective. We can refine the subjectivity of morality to get some sort of universally accepted code, but it still subjective.

 

[Kaon]

Just as a side note, I do believe the OP is an excellent philosophical discussion on the limits of human subjectivity in both directions (pure subjectivity to, if it were possible, pure objectivity). I do think aspects of humanity are can be axiomatic (accepted to be true without actually having the need to prove it true), but I am (personally) staunchly opposed to the idea that morality in any form that is based on humanity can be objective.

We are always being deceived, some of us beg to be deceived because we do not want to, and/or cannot handle the truth. Since we are mortal, and finite, we have limits on what we can take, so it is (nearly) impossible for a human to be 100% objective - except for at least One in history.

 

[Halbhh]

I would just say morality, by definition, cannot be objective because customs are not objective, and humans are not objective.

We might be using words differently, and I'm not sure. I use the word objective roughly to mean something that exists independently of our knowing it (whether we know it, or don't know, it still exists, in a definite state of stable characteristics).

So, to me any person is an objective fact in that they exist, and then next, their innate human characteristics determined by their genes, which we all share, universally all humans generally, are also objective facts. So, for example, their needs for friendship with other humans of some kind (some varied kind or another) is an objective fact, regardless of the individual, whether that individual might suppress that desire, or transfer it to pets, etc.

 

[Steve97]

I have often wondered what point of reference an atheist/agnostic uses to determine right from wrong.

 

[Kaon]

We might be using words differently, and I'm not sure. I use the word objective roughly to mean something that exists independently of our knowing it (whether we know it, or don't know, it still exists, in a definite state of stable characteristics).

So, to me any person is an objective fact in that they exist, and then next, their innate human characteristics determined by their genes, which we all share, universally all humans generally, are also objective facts. So, for example, their needs for friendship with other humans of some kind (some varied kind or another) is an objective fact, regardless of the individual, whether that individual might suppress that desire, or transfer it to pets, etc.

Right. I am glad you clarified. And, in that respect I fully agree with you. But I think you are talking about gnosis - and not everyone is endowed with gnosis (divine or specific knowledge).

I am using "objective" in its denotation - to mean purely impartial.

 

[durangodawood]

I have often wondered what point of reference an atheist/agnostic uses to determine right from wrong.

Human well being.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I said a legal issue was raised (not solved--all of your questions are part of a legal solution) rather than a moral issue.

We agree that no moral issue is involved.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

Do you think your analysis here is actually correct? If so, why can't we say you're objectively correct?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

That's fine, bro. We don't have to agree. We can just be Christian 'buds' anyway. Besides, all this means is that we've come to different conclusions, thus far, simply because we've read through different set of propositions and have developed our thinking in separate sphere, so many things are possible in variation here.

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.

No, I wasn't arguing from that position at all. I was actually implying that neither Bob NOR Jane has any definite backing in support of their "moral right" ... so far as we can tell if the only thing we have to gone on is the scenario in the OP. And, we're not even sure if Bob has a bona-fide legal right, either.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Interesting different issue. Consider this version of Maslow's hierarchy:

Since a person cannot generally do the higher levels well (or at length) in the hierarchy without having the lower levels met.....

....then when it bothers you that someone on the internet or in person doesn't have:
lack of prejudice
or
acceptance of facts

Might it be they need some lower levels needs met first. That's what the idea is above.

We'd expect so. Therefore the best help against prejudice or obstinacy about facts isn't argument.

Not argument. Doesn't meet needs....

But the only real help is....need meeting in various levels under that top level. You might be someone that can help them.

Why should I care what Maslow thinks?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Do you think your analysis here is actually correct? If so, why can't we say you're objectively correct?

There you see the problem
"Do you THINK your analysis Correct?
If so why is it not OBJECTIVE?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Human well being.

Why and which human?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Kind of, but the origin from whence legal authority is created in the U.S. is beside the point. The OP is set in a social vacuum and is very much hypothetical as far as I can tell.

 

[Chriliman]

There you see the problem
"Do you THINK your analysis Correct?
If so why is it not OBJECTIVE?

Well, that's the thing. He can't be objectively correct when he's saying objective correctness is not possible.

 

[Kaon]

Do you think your analysis here is actually correct? If so, why can't we say you're objectively correct?

Of course, I think my analysis is correct - not in an arrogant way, but in the sense that I wouldn't have said it if I didn't have strong conviction toward it.

But, even still, my conviction is still opinion, as it is with every one else - which is my point. Humans are subjective thinking creatures at best. There is no way morality can be objective, because humans live through subjectivity (feeling, sensing, etc.). In fact, one of the cultural things that "makes" us human is that we feel - we aren't impartial. [As it pertains to most of us] We aren't Borg.

 

[Kaon]

Well, that's the thing. He can't be objectively correct when he's saying objective correctness is not possible.

It isn't with humans, which is why morality can never be objective with humans.

 

[Chriliman]

Of course, I think my analysis is correct - not in an arrogant way, but in the sense that I wouldn't have said it if I didn't have strong conviction toward it.

But, even still, my conviction is still opinion, as it is with every one else - which is my point. Humans are subjective thinking creatures at best. There is no way morality can be objective, because humans live through subjectivity (feeling, sensing, etc.). In fact, one of the cultural things that "makes" us human is that we feel - we aren't impartial. [As it pertains to most of us] We aren't Borg.

I get what you're saying, but doesn't that mean no one can actually be correct/right(or wrong for that matter) about anything?

If I recognize correctness in someone else, that means their correctness is objective to me(it exists apart from myself), even though it may be subjective to them(came from within themselves).