Where is the Objective Morality?

[Bradskii]

That is not a foregone conclusion.

If we cannot find something, we don't even know when someone has found it, nobody can even suggest who might have found it and we can't tell the difference between people who say they have found it but disagree, then...the fact that it doesn't exist is the only conclusion.

 

[Sabertooth]

If we cannot find something, we don't even know when someone has found it, nobody can even suggest who might have found it and we can't tell the difference between people who say they have found it but disagree, then...the fact that it doesn't exist is the only conclusion.

The Ten Commandments are those fundamental standards of the Law.
Even if you opt for their most relaxed interpretation, everybody has broken, at least, one of them in their lifetime.

 

[durangodawood]

Sorry I didn't read any of the other thread with a similar name, so am probably missing the point of your question. To me of course it is in the minds of sentient beings (like math). Were you looking for a physical location of morality? Like where it resides in some portion of our brains maybe? If that is the case I can just say, I don't know.

For math, I think we derive its basic axioms from observations we make of the world around us. I dont see a similar objective mind independence in a morality that proposed to be transmitted from the mind of God to the mind of humans. So if there is a truly objective morality, it must be out there somewhere in the world.

 

[durangodawood]

I posted this in the other thread, and it's too good to not post again. From

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather


Not one particle of morality either. (me)
​

Reductionism usually fails for me because it ignores real structures of matter that have capacities beyond the simplest particles.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Reductionism usually fails for me because it ignores real structures of matter that have capacities beyond the simplest particles.

I think Pratchett's "reduction" is valuable. We should attempt to understand what we are "really" dealing with. Justice is a concept. Mercy is a concept. Morality is a concept.

They exist only in the minds of the sapient. They are ideas we construct that we use to categorize actions and states of affairs. "That decision fits in my conception of justice. That one fits in my category of mercy. That act on my list of immoral things."

Once we realize the reality of the "reduction", we can begin to have a rational conversation. Unless one can find a particle of morality, we must default to the idea that morality is an idea.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.

I simply want to know where it is.

If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?

Or.....localizing the place of "objective morality" might not be a dichotomous or simple act of observance, but perhaps one that is rather complex in nature, even highly complex?

 

[durangodawood]

I think Pratchett's "reduction" is valuable. We should attempt to understand what we are "really" dealing with. Justice is a concept. Mercy is a concept. Morality is a concept.

They exist only in the minds of the sapient. They are ideas we construct that we use to categorize actions and states of affairs. "That decision fits in my conception of justice. That one fits in my category of mercy. That act on my list of immoral things."

Once we realize the reality of the "reduction", we can begin to have a rational conversation. Unless one can find a particle of morality, we must default to the idea that morality is an idea.

But if you grind everything down to fundamental particles, the list of real objective things you no longer find will be quite exhaustive. Tables. Snickers bars. Water. I could go on.

Its a terrible test for whats objectively real.

 

[durangodawood]

Or.....localizing the place of "objective morality" might not be a dichotomous or simple act of observance, but perhaps one that is rather complex in nature, even highly complex?

Whats an example of another thing with a complex location, just so I can see if I'm understanding you...?

 

[Tinker Grey]

But if you grind everything down to fundamental particles, the list of real objective things you no longer find will be quite exhaustive. Tables. Snickers bars. Water. I could go on.

Its a terrible test for whats objectively real.

But that's missing the point. Morality isn't anywhere. The point is that you could exhaustively search for it and you won't find it.

"YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY" is just poetry.

 

[durangodawood]

But that's missing the point. Morality isn't anywhere. The point is that you could exhaustively search for it and you won't find it.

"YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY" is just poetry.

I see. But an exhaustive and fruitless search in the macro world was not mentioned in the quote. I was just going by what was presented to me.

 

[childeye 2]

Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.

I simply want to know where it is.

If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?

It depends on the aspect of one's mental state. The person who can fully understand two opposing subjective points of view will have an objective view. In Psycholinguistics, the center of a left/right dichotomy exists in an abstract where positive and negative connotations of terms reverse in a true dichotomy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But if you grind everything down to fundamental particles, the list of real objective things you no longer find will be quite exhaustive. Tables. Snickers bars. Water. I could go on.

Tables are easy to find without grinding anything down.

But Justice is not apparent in that same way. Much like Beauty, it appears to be in the eye of the beholder, rather than 'out there' (which is the import of your OP, I think).

 

[VirOptimus]

It depends on the aspect of one's mental state. The person who can fully understand two opposing subjective points of view will have an objective view. In Psycholinguistics, the center of a left/right dichotomy exists in an abstract where positive and negative connotations of terms reverse in a true dichotomy.

Thats not what "objective" means.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whats an example of another thing with a complex location, just so I can see if I'm understanding you...?

Actually, I'm referring to the 'act of observation' itself being a complex process, but the "location" of an objective moral structure is, I think, another entity and has a complexity of its own as well.

In this case, I'm making an allusion to the idea that I think some level of Gestalt Psychology is at play in the act of human observation, and that this would then also apply to--and within--the act of attempting to locate and identify an objective moral structure, however tenuous and slight the empirical evidences may be for that structure.

Is this a little clearer? My apologies if it still isn't.

 

[childeye 2]

Thats not what "objective" means.

I respectfully disagree. The adjective "objective" when describing a view, is one without bias or prejudice as opposed to a subjective view. That is how I qualified and applied the term.
ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/

adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
   "historians try to be objective and impartial"

 

[VirOptimus]

I respectfully disagree. The adjective "objective" when describing a view, is one without bias or prejudice as opposed to a subjective view. That is how I qualified and applied the term.
ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/

adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
   "historians try to be objective and impartial"

Thats not how it is defined in philosophy.

 

[eleos1954]

So who do we turn to to find out what is objectively moral? I keep asking but I get nothing like a straight answer. Now you say that we'll make mistakes in determining what is moral until God gives us the ability. But you know full well that many believers hold many different views as to what is morally acceptable and many of them will tell me that they are acting according to God's will.

And you have no way of telling me which one of them is right.

Do you want me to give you some examples and you can tell me which moral position is the correct one?

Being a christian does not make a person perfect .... none of us claim that ... all are in different places with their walk with God .... and we do mess up. Don't look at christians as an example of who God is ..... look at who God is (through the life of Jesus .... who is God.

Yes, we are called to reflect His character .... but we fall short of that .... some worse than others .... and we understand that.

The absolute moral position is contained in the life of Jesus.

 

[childeye 2]

Thats not how it is defined in philosophy.

Please elaborate.

 

[VirOptimus]

Please elaborate.

Look it up.

 

[childeye 2]

Look it up.

This is what I found:
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact".

I don't see where my post indicated that there is no objective fact in an objective view. Making judgments based on facts rather than prejudice is covered in the definition I applied.