Understanding Objective Morality

[Halbhh]

Both because he being the rightful owner of the land means she has to decide whether to ignore him(bad) or comply with the fact that he was there first, which the documents prove, and move off(good).

My overall question is whether or not objective facts brought to our attention may inform our moral decision making, meaning we can potentially base our morals on objective facts(objective morality). I understand there may be more to morality than mere objective facts, but at least a good starting point?

Sure, sometimes we have to go against the objective fact of the law of the land (not typically, in fact rarely) in order to do what is clearly morally right.

Easy example: the law of the land requires Jews to turn in all jewelry :
The essential robbery of Jews became legal when Jews were forced on February 21, 1939, to turn in all jewelry of any value.[21]
Anti-Jewish legislation in pre-war Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

And a Jew in hiding you know comes to you and asks you to keep a family keepsake diamond to give to their child that has been successfully removed to America, that you keep the jewel and give it to that child later in time.

So, the person is asking you to help them break the 1939 law there in Germany.

If you do what is morally right, you help them break the law.

 

[Halbhh]

This totally makes sense and is pretty congruent with my idea of morality as based on the objective facts about human well being.

But I would not assume that our genetic coding is necessarily aligned with well being. I think we fight a lot of coded impulses that may have served our ancestors well, but cause us a lot of suffering. Now, "fairness", probably isnt one of those. But all the same, the fact that its coded doesnt define it as moral. What defines it as moral is that we have a largely consensus view that its a good value to hold, based on our collective observations of human living over generations.

That's entirely correct, and you point to a key thing: But I would not assume that our genetic coding is necessarily aligned with well being.

Ergo, we need laws. To be exact, since people often mistakenly believe they can gain at the expense of others, laws ideally help signal to us that certain ideas a person might think of doing are wrongful, and that the community will try to prevent them from continuing to do that wrong action (theft, rape, whatever).

One interesting thing about any law/rule: one could laboriously observe different places and times and situations where people lived without that particular law, or other places they have that particular law and follow it.

That would be objective information we could gather: facts about what happened in those communities over time. If we could do well to account for other factors, so that we could isolate the effect of the one law, then we might (sometimes) get a useful information about whether the law improved life for people.

A result that the law was beneficial or harmful in effect.

That would be objective also.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Both because he being the rightful owner of the land means she has to decide whether to ignore him(bad) or comply with the fact that he was there first, which the documents prove, and move off(good).

You're conflating 2 different things. One is the legal question of who owns the land....and the other is the moral question of what she should do.

They are not the same thing .

My overall question is whether or not objective facts brought to our attention may inform our moral decision making, meaning we can potentially base our morals on objective facts(objective morality). I understand there may be more to morality than mere objective facts, but at least a good starting point?

Objective reality informs all kinds of decisions....but that doesn't make morality itself objective.

 

[Chriliman]

You're conflating 2 different things. One is the legal question of who owns the land....and the other is the moral question of what she should do.

They are not the same thing .

I know. What’s your point?

Objective reality informs all kinds of decisions....but that doesn't make morality itself objective.

If you establish your morality based on objective reality, how is your morality not objective to me? Does it not exist in reality apart from myself?

 

[durangodawood]

I know. What’s your point?



If you establish your morality based on objective reality, how is your morality not objective to me? Does it not exist in reality apart from myself?

So you dont think its objectively true that a society where theft and murder is rampant will be more miserable that one where its not?

 

[Chriliman]

So you dont think its objectively true that a society where theft and murder is rampant will be more miserable that one where its not?

I do think that’s objectively true. Why did you think I wouldn’t?

 

[durangodawood]

I do think that’s objectively true. Why did you think I wouldn’t?

It sounded like you dont find an objective basis for human morality.

 

[Chriliman]

It sounded like you dont find an objective basis for human morality.

Oh I do, but I’m questioning if that means morality can be objective or not. Ana the Ist said it’s not, I was merely questioning his conclusion on that.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

If you think these are the basis for well being and you are about maximizing these for all people in a situation then you are just choosing your standard. Just like everyone else believers and nonbelievers. All moral systems are ultimately have a subjective goal.

 

[Halbhh]

If you think these are the basis for well being and you are about maximizing these for all people in a situation then you are just choosing your standard. Just like everyone else believers and nonbelievers. All moral systems are ultimately have a subjective goal.

Yes, it's a 'subjective' choice in a nominal sense at least, to say one values what people commonly call a good life, in that someone could choose to value something else going more against this listing from Maslow instead.

But...that these drives referenced there from Maslow drives are built into human nature....is quite meaningful.

We aren't just any species, but rather, we are this particular one, with these particular attributes.

The attributes, themselves objective, cause there to be a stable, continuing set of rules that best help those drives be maximized for humanity. That's a interesting outcome of the innate attributes!

It's not trivial, in that if people are frustrated enough in their innate drives, they will go to war and create massive bloodshed.