Where is the Objective Morality?

[Belk]

'Atom' basically means "indivisible unit." They were initially thought to be, but as it turns out atoms are divisible.

No, atomic means having to do with atoms.

Because, divorced from the origin of terms, I find that popular consensus has a tendency to rest upon misunderstanding and fallacious assumptions.

If you use words as they were used in the past instead of their current meaning I guarantee misunderstandings will occur.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would say unconditional Love is the Spirit of morality.

Sounds like a subjective thing to say.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I forget, are you one who claims morality is objective?

If so, what are the facts apprehended about morality? How does one determine that the apprehended "moral thing " is a fact?

I claim that a moral code arrived at by objective means is an objective code. I don't claim that all moral codes are objective since the vast majority of people hold subjective moral codes, i.e., a code based on what others think or what some supernatural being that one can only imagine thinks. If I think that morality exists in the mind, I know it's not in my mind because I don't automatically know what's good for me or what I should do. So I'll go looking to other minds because it must be there. Or I imagine a supernatural mind that is omniscient. Or I go looking for some Guru to tell me what I should do. I don't look at the facts of reality.

If I think that morality is out there apart from the mind, well I don't know where to look. There must be someone else who does so I'll go ask him or her or I'll look to an ancient book, the older the better. This book has stood the test of time and many, many others believe it so who am I to buck the masses. This is why when a person leaves one religion he goes immediately to look for another or he goes looking for some guru. The one thing a person like this is terrified of is to think for him or herself.

What are the facts apprehended about morality? A is A and man is man. Man has a specific nature and therefore acts in specific ways. By his nature, he must act in order to live. By his nature, he does not know automatically what actions he should take to live. He must learn. His means of learning is reason, the faculty that identifies the material of his senses. He must look at reality and identify the facts relevant to his life and act accordingly. Since man has to act in some specific way in order to live, any other course of action will lead to his death. He needs a standard by which to judge the facts that he discovers.
If he wants to live then that standard is his life because it's the goal that all his actions must be aimed at. Life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

It is this judging phase where subjectivity enters into it. People confronted with the same facts make different judgments about morality. These judgments cannot be facts, because a fact can't be both true and false. At best they are facts about people's judgments. But this is exactly what we mean by subjective.

"Bob judges that abortion is sometimes morally justified."
"Kate judges that abortion is never morally justified."

These are two separate facts about Bob's and Kate's judgments. But there is no one objective fact about whether abortion is or isn't morally justified. At least not anything coming from people's judgments. And hence, the question in the OP. Where would we find the objective facts of the matter, if they existed?

 

[TheWhat?]

No, atomic means having to do with atoms.




If you use words as they were used in the past instead of their current meaning I guarantee misunderstandings will occur.

I am using the term in a correct sense.

atomism, any doctrine that explains complex phenomena in terms of aggregates of fixed particles or units. This philosophy has found its most successful application in natural science: according to the atomistic view, the material universe is composed of minute particles, which are considered to be relatively simple and immutable and too small to be visible. The multiplicity of visible forms in nature, then, is based upon differences in these particles and in their configurations; hence, any observable changes must be reduced to changes in these configurations. (src)​

More removed from the original field of application of atomism is a theory known as logical atomism (developed by the eminent philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell and by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in his early period), which supposes that a perfect isomorphism exists between an “atom” of language (i.e., an atomic proposition) and an atomic fact; i.e., for each atomic fact, there is a corresponding atomic proposition. An atomic proposition is one that asserts that a certain thing has a certain quality—e.g., “This is red.” An atomic fact is the simplest kind of fact and consists in the possession of a quality by some individual thing. (src)




​

 

[Belk]

I am using the term in a correct sense.

atomism, any doctrine that explains complex phenomena in terms of aggregates of fixed particles or units. This philosophy has found its most successful application in natural science: according to the atomistic view, the material universe is composed of minute particles, which are considered to be relatively simple and immutable and too small to be visible. The multiplicity of visible forms in nature, then, is based upon differences in these particles and in their configurations; hence, any observable changes must be reduced to changes in these configurations. (src)​

More removed from the original field of application of atomism is a theory known as logical atomism (developed by the eminent philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell and by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in his early period), which supposes that a perfect isomorphism exists between an “atom” of language (i.e., an atomic proposition) and an atomic fact; i.e., for each atomic fact, there is a corresponding atomic proposition. An atomic proposition is one that asserts that a certain thing has a certain quality—e.g., “This is red.” An atomic fact is the simplest kind of fact and consists in the possession of a quality by some individual thing. (src)




​

I'll leave you to your study of historic terms.

 

[childeye 2]

Sounds like a subjective thing to say.

I'm not claiming to be God, but as a theist I still have to make a determination of what God would have me do and not do in a moral/immoral context. And in that capacity, it's reasonable to say that morality serves a mutual compassion/empathy.

 

[Bradskii]

I believe the objective view would factor in the reasons why a person gets an abortion before determining the right and wrong of it.

Before determining the right and wrong of it? That makes no sense to me. The reasons why a woman would have an abortion would have nothing at all to do with it if it was objectively wrong. It can't be right for one woman and wrong for another. Their reasons would be irrelevant. If they were relevent (and they are) then it would be a subjective matter.

I submit that it's unreasonable to expect proof of an objective view yet not have any criteria to even make a determination.

This is my point exactly. There are no criteria for determining the objectivity. We can certainly agree that something is morally wrong but there has been no way put forward in the countless discussions I have had on this topic as to how it is determined to be objectively wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not claiming to be God, but as a theist I still have to make a determination of what God would have me do and not do in a moral/immoral context. And in that capacity, it's reasonable to say that morality serves a mutual compassion/empathy.

I think we're both fond of Mark 12/31. So let's examine that.

Is taking one's own life immoral? Is helping someone to do that immoral? There's quite a discussion to be had in my state at the moment as euthanasia is going to be voted on. And I support it (with reservations). Because I believe that if I'm in terrible pain on death's door then I have the right to end my life as I see fit (with all due considerations to my family). And if my wife, for example, was in the same position, then I would not consider it to be an immoral act to help her end her life if she so wished. And the reason I could do that is precisely because of, as you say, 'mutual compassion/empathy'.

You might disagree. But how could you say that it's objectively immoral if it fullfills the requirements that you have given? It's plainly obvious that it's a personal decision. And I would naturally respect yours - as a subjective view which is different to mine.

 

[childeye 2]

Before determining the right and wrong of it? That makes no sense to me.

Consider the circumstance of rape as an example. It poses the question "Is abortion excusable when someone doesn't want a baby because she was raped?"

The reasons why a woman would have an abortion would have nothing at all to do with it if it was objectively wrong. It can't be right for one woman and wrong for another. Their reasons would be irrelevant. If they were relevent (and they are) then it would be a subjective matter.

The objective view would at least see that a raped woman is not responsible for her circumstance. Isn't there an objective view of culpability and intent? And what informs mercy? After all, moral/immoral terminology contains the dichotomy of accuse/excuse.

This is my point exactly. There are no criteria for determining the objectivity. We can certainly agree that something is morally wrong but there has been no way put forward in the countless discussions I have had on this topic as to how it is determined to be objectively wrong.

The term "reality" implies everything that exists including us, which invites speculation in the ignorance thereof. The circumstance is that we share a reality with other people. We all know reality is there by definition. But from our individual limited views, we can't see it all collectively, or know it all, and even define it all and articulate it all. So this circumstance forms a postulation that there is a more objective view of reality, which implies degrees of objectivity attainable through the scientific method. So that in an absolute form the objective view exists in the abstract the same way reality does.

However, the objective view becomes nuanced when applied in a moral/immoral context of reality. For example, this is why for theists, the objective view in a moral/immoral deliberation axiomatically implies a Person as Most High that is Benevolent.

I have submitted that the criteria for an objective view in the moral/immoral context, is in the principle of love others as you would want to be loved. I believe this is reasonable because compassion is the common goodness that informs our morality and it also exposes our hypocrisy.

 

[childeye 2]

I think we're both fond of Mark 12/31. So let's examine that.

Is taking one's own life immoral? Is helping someone to do that immoral? There's quite a discussion to be had in my state at the moment as euthanasia is going to be voted on. And I support it (with reservations). Because I believe that if I'm in terrible pain on death's door then I have the right to end my life as I see fit (with all due considerations to my family). And if my wife, for example, was in the same position, then I would not consider it to be an immoral act to help her end her life if she so wished. And the reason I could do that is precisely because of, as you say, 'mutual compassion/empathy'.

You might disagree. But how could you say that it's objectively immoral if it fullfills the requirements that you have given? It's plainly obvious that it's a personal decision. And I would naturally respect yours - as a subjective view which is different to mine.

Well spoken. And to your point about euthanasia, my initial response is that it's perfectly reasonable to want to be responsible for the personal decisions that will affect only you.

But here's another response that comes to mind. There's a reason Jesus said "don't judge", denoting a negative connotation, or crossing a line where in the pursuit of establishing what is moral, it becomes immorality. So I reason that the line is the objective moral view that was crossed over, and the reasoning is now moving away from morality because the connotations have reversed. But I don't see how Mark 12 is meant to be applied.

 

[childeye 2]

It is this judging phase where subjectivity enters into it. People confronted with the same facts make different judgments about morality. These judgments cannot be facts, because a fact can't be both true and false. At best they are facts about people's judgments. But this is exactly what we mean by subjective.

"Bob judges that abortion is sometimes morally justified."
"Kate judges that abortion is never morally justified."

These are two separate facts about Bob's and Kate's judgments. But there is no one objective fact about whether abortion is or isn't morally justified. At least not anything coming from people's judgments. And hence, the question in the OP. Where would we find the objective facts of the matter, if they existed?

Your post is articulated well. But the logical assertion that Bob and Kate have the same facts available doesn't assure that they have the necessary facts available (which is probably more to your point). It's reasonable to assume that when in the the absence of necessary facts, the void will form judgments laced with opinion and prejudice and projection, and that is probably why they are different. Hence you end with asking whether such facts even exist.

Assuming their views are in the same frame of argument, one would need to examine their individual reasonings as to how they have arrived at their different conclusions. But they might not even be in the same frame of argument. For example, the question of when life begins, is a different question than when does the life become a person?

The op asks where do we find objective morality? I think it's in the principle of love others as you would want to be loved.

 

[VirOptimus]

Your post is articulated well. But the logical assertion that Bob and Kate have the same facts available doesn't assure that they have the necessary facts available (which is probably more to your point). It's reasonable to assume that when in the the absence of necessary facts, the void will form judgments laced with opinion and prejudice and projection, and that is probably why they are different. Hence you end with asking whether such facts even exist.

Assuming their views are in the same frame of argument, one would need to examine they're individual reasonings as to how they have arrived at their different conclusions. But they might not even be in the same frame of argument. For example, the question of when life begins, is a different question than when does the life become a person?

The op asks where do we find objective morality? I think it's in the principle of love others as you would want to be loved.

Love is not objective.

 

[childeye 2]

Love is not objective.

I would submit that in the moral/immoral context, compassion/empathy is objective because it's common to everyone.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would submit that in the moral/immoral context, compassion/empathy is objective because it's common to everyone.

Everyone's experience of what they call compassion/empathy/love is different and therefore subjective.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your post is articulated well. But the logical assertion that Bob and Kate have the same facts available doesn't assure that they have the necessary facts available

I think everybody with any interest in the topic has enough facts about abortion to come to a decision.

 

[childeye 2]

Everyone's experience of what they call compassion/empathy/love is different and therefore subjective.

True, because everyone is a unique individual experiencing their own part in a shared reality. Nonetheless in the moral/immoral context, compassion/empathy/love is commonly understood as the goodness in mankind. The objective view accounts for subjective views, which is why it's objective. In other words compassion is a part of the shared reality and therefore is objective in that it is common to all subjective views.

 

[childeye 2]

I think everybody with any interest in the topic has enough facts about abortion to come to a decision.

Then why is the summation in your prior post indicating otherwise? "Where would we find the objective facts of the matter, if they existed?"

Apart from that, I suppose that it's possible there are enough facts (objectivity), depending on how the debate is framed. But are you suggesting people have enough facts to make an informed decision? But then why are there differing judgments? Perhaps you're suggesting that people are ignoring the facts?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But are you suggesting people have enough facts to make an informed decision?

Certainly. We know what pregnancy is. We know what rape and incest are. We know what trimesters are. We know what heartbeats are. We know who people are. We have plenty of factual information to make our own decisions about the morality of abortion.

But then why are there differing judgments?

Because personal judgments are obviously a subjective decision of each person. And we appear to have no access to any objective standard that would tell us unambiguously whether abortion was always wrong, or sometimes justified. But if this is only an appearance, then where is that objective standard?

 

[childeye 2]

We have plenty of factual information to make our own decisions about the morality of abortion.

we appear to have no access to any objective standard that would tell us unambiguously whether abortion was always wrong, or sometimes justified.

Since any objective standard would be based on factual information not available in the limited subjective view, the two reasonings above appear to be at odds. To rephrase: If it were true that there is plenty of factual information (Objectivity) to make an informed decision, then we would have access to an objective standard that would tell us whether abortion is always wrong or sometimes justified.

If I read between the lines I think you're trying to say, "It's perfectly reasonable to want to be responsible for the personal decisions that will affect only you". To rephrase: "It's unreasonable for others to make personal decisions for you about personal matters that won't affect them".