Where is the Objective Morality?

[VirOptimus]

Reality
: the quality or state of being real
2a(1): a real event, entity, or state of affairs
(2): the totality of real things and events

Definition of exist


intransitive verb

1a: to have real being whether material or spiritual


Do you see Love/compassion/empathy existing in the reality we all share? You know, people caring for the needy, weeping at the loss of loved ones, Mothers/Fathers embracing their children, stuff like that. Does that happen in reality? Is love/compassion/empathy real?

Exist is a lot more complex in philosophy.

Again, do some studying, you are as I have said in way over your head.

 

[childeye 2]

Thats not what I said.

Read up on value nihilism.

Oh, sorry. So have you experienced compassion/love or not? It's a simple question.

 

[childeye 2]

Exist is a lot more complex in philosophy.

Again, do some studying, you are as I have said in way over your head.

I put forth the definition I'm using to express my sentiments. I hope you're not changing the meanings I intend and then commenting on something that I never said.

 

[Neogaia777]

I seem to recall some movies saying that "it", Love/compassion, etc, might be what goes beyond this, and in some movies reaching into or beyond the fifth dimension, etc...?

Interstellar comes to mind, etc...?

Goes well beyond just the social utility in it, etc, Love does, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

@childeye 2 was right about absolute/objective and subjective/relative, etc...

God Bless!

 

[VirOptimus]

I put forth the definition I'm using to express my sentiments. I hope you're not changing the meanings I intend and then commenting on something that I never said.

No, but its not much worth discussing more if you dont read up on the subject(s).

 

[durangodawood]

Compassion/empathy/love are not objective.

Really?

Jack loves Jill seems like a fact of the world rather than someone's opinion.

Heck even Jill likes ice cream is objective.

Chocolate is the best! Thats subjective.

 

[VirOptimus]

Really?

Jack loves Jill seems like a fact of the world rather than someone's opinion.

Heck even Jill likes ice cream is objective.

Chocolate is the best! Thats subjective.

As I previoudly stated, objective requires an objective agent.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't believe you see nothing wrong with...

You are correct. I see something wrong with that. A judgement made by me. An opinion informed by my preferences. I don't believe there is any fact of the matter other than facts about preferences.

"I believe abortion is morally acceptable in some circumstances."
This is an objectively true statement about my beliefs. But is not a moral statement.

"Abortion is morally acceptable in some circumstances."
This is a moral statement. I don't believe this has an objective true or false truth-value.

If that's the case, I don't see how your desire for a team to lose a sports contest even qualifies as an opinion. If it was your preference for them to lose and you're glad they lost, then that's a fact because that's the reality. Now had you said, "I think they're going to lose", that would be an opinion.

If that's the case, then this and some of your other statements demonstrate that you don't really understand the topic of the thread.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Really?

Jack loves Jill seems like a fact of the world rather than someone's opinion.

Heck even Jill likes ice cream is objective.

Chocolate is the best! Thats subjective.

Yes, really.

That Jill said she likes ice cream is objective. The event of saying occurred. That you heard her say it is objective. The event of hearing occurred. That you saw her eat ice cream is objective. The event of eating and the event of seeing occurred.

That you interpret this, however correct the interpretation is, as meaning that she does, in fact, like ice cream is subjective.

Love is subjective. We as a species are evolved to be a social species. Existence conditions us to recognize categories of behavior more or less the same. This is useful for communication. It is useful for a social species to survive. We more or less recognize love the same way. BUT it is the more or less of it that makes this recognition subjective.

Too, love is simply a label for a grouping of behaviors. It exists only as a label for a concept that makes communication feasible. When a person behaves in a particular way towards another, we might say that it is love. Fortunately, most of the time, we agree when we say a person is in love. But we don't always.

You and I and a stalker might always agree that bringing groceries to one's invalid mother is a loving thing to do. You and I, however, would agree (I hope) that the stalker is wrong to bother that person over there. The stalker disagrees. It's subjective. The stalker thinks he/she is loving. You and I (I hope) don't.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, really.

That Jill said she likes ice cream is objective. The event of saying occurred. That you heard her say it is objective. The event of hearing occurred. That you saw her eat ice cream is objective. The event of eating and the event of seeing occurred.

That you interpret this, however correct the interpretation is, as meaning that she does, in fact, like ice cream is subjective.

Love is subjective. We as a species are evolved to be a social species. Existence conditions us to recognize categories of behavior more or less the same. This is useful for communication. It is useful for a social species to survive. We more or less recognize love the same way. BUT it is the more or less of it that makes this recognition subjective.

Too, love is simply a label for a grouping of behaviors. When a person behaves in a particular way towards another, we might say that it is love. Fortunately, most of the time, we agree when we say a person is in love. But we don't always.

You and I and a stalker might always agree that bringing groceries to one's invalid mother is a loving thing to do. You and I, however, would agree (I hope) that the stalker is wrong to bother that person over there. The stalker disagrees. It's subjective. The stalker thinks he/she is loving. You and I (I hope) don't.

I was talking about Jill liking ice cream, not about my sense that Jill likes ice cream. Does that make a difference?

 

[durangodawood]

As I previoudly stated, objective requires an objective agent.

Does it? Or just a potential objective agent?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, its still an event free from individual subjectivity, with its reverberations or other evidence objectively accessible, at least in principle.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I was talking about Jill liking ice cream, not about my sense that Jill likes ice cream. Does that make a difference?

A little. But, the point is that interpretation is subjective. That Jill says she likes ice cream is objective. That you think that therefore she does like ice cream is subjective.

In principle, I suppose, I think we might isolate portions of the brain that "light up" consistently across humans who declare that they like ice cream. Then we could measure Jill's brain response when she declares she likes ice cream and thus with the same certainty that we can agree that there is indeed a rock in my front yard, we can agree that Jill likes ice cream. That is to say that under conditions like this, as much as it is objective to say there is a rock in my front yard, it is objective to say that Jill likes ice cream.

But all of this different to saying how justified one is in believing that Jill likes ice cream. If Jill behaves the same way as anyone else you've ever met who says they like ice cream, you are justified in believing it. Even if Jill behaves the way most people behave, you are justified. But it is an interpretation of the circumstances.

Note here that you are comparing Jill with other people, or more precisely, your experiences of other people. Even if I were a hermit, as long as my experience with what I call a rock, enables me to predict my experience with the next thing I am inclined to judge to be a rock, I am justified in calling it a rock. (And, the word 'rock' is just a label for a category of objects about which I have expectations.)

The fact that something is subjective does not mean that one isn't justified in making a judgement. It does not mean that one isn't justified in having expectations. It just means that each subject (a sapient being) has different experiences, however slightly, than another subject.

Successful communication, especially for hard topics, depends on recognizing subjectivity--that your interlocutor has had a different set of experiences than you.

 

[durangodawood]

A little. But, the point is that interpretation is subjective. That Jill says she likes ice cream is objective. That you think that therefore she does like ice cream is subjective.

In principle, I suppose, I think we might isolate portions of the brain that "light up" consistently across humans who declare that they like ice cream. Then we could measure Jill's brain response when she declares she likes ice cream and thus with the same certainty that we can agree that there is indeed a rock in my front yard, we can agree that Jill likes ice cream. That is to say that under conditions like this, as much as it is objective to say there is a rock in my front yard, it is objective to say that Jill likes ice cream.

But all of this different to saying how justified one is in believing that Jill likes ice cream. If Jill behaves the same way as anyone else you've ever met who says they like ice cream, you are justified in believing it. Even if Jill behaves the way most people behave, you are justified. But it is an interpretation of the circumstances.

Note here that you are comparing Jill with other people, or more precisely, your experiences of other people. Even if I were a hermit, as long as my experience with what I call a rock, enables me to predict my experience with the next thing I am inclined to judge to be a rock, I am justified in calling it a rock. (And, the word 'rock' is just a label for a category of objects about which I have expectations.)

The fact that something is subjective does not mean that one isn't justified in making a judgement. It does not mean that one isn't justified in having expectations. It just means that each subject (a sapient being) has different experiences, however slightly, than another subject.

Successful communication, especially for hard topics, depends on recognizing subjectivity--that your interlocutor has had a different set of experiences than you.

I think you are over-mystifying the idea of liking something. Sure Jill experiences liking as a subjective set of qualia or whatever. But the liking itself is happening as a set of neurophysiologies that are at least in principle objectively observable.

In other words, liking is something she, her brain and body, is basically doing, and an objective event that happens in the world. Secondarily, there's her experience of that doing, those acts. That part is subjective.

Most of your post seems to be dealing with my judgement about whether she likes ice cream. But inherent difficulties in assessing an objective event dont make the actual fact of the matter inherently subjective. For instance we all seem to categorize the origin of the universe as some matter available for objective scrutiny, even though much about it is currently inaccessible.

 

[childeye 2]

No, but its not much worth discussing more if you dont read up on the subject(s).

Respectfully, reading up on the subject is not the problem. It's not even philosophy as I see it, but rather it's sophistry. The terminology as set forth creates so many loopholes that articulation of sound reasoning is not possible.

Fundamentally, if morality in the objective view must mean specific codes or principles, then morality is a thing or set of things in the objective view, because moral principles are things. Yet in subjective morality, the term morality is qualified as a person. People's opinions of right and wrong are expressions of their own selves, as in the way they see things. This disconnect creates a false dichotomy because a false premise is being presented.

So in the psycholinguistics we're actually debating whether morality is a person or a thing, which is why I asked you from the get go "What exactly is a right/wrong independent of humanity when we're the ones experiencing what's right and wrong collectively?" If you recall you called objective morality nonsense. At the time I could completely appreciate your sentiment, but I articulated it as the term not being defined well enough. From then on, you assumed I was in over my head and began discounting what I say offhand as if I had no understanding of the topic.

 

[VirOptimus]

Respectfully, reading up on the subject is not the problem. It's not even philosophy as I see it, but rather it's sophistry. The terminology as set forth creates so many loopholes that articulation of sound reasoning is not possible.

Fundamentally, if morality in the objective view must mean specific codes or principles, then morality is a thing or set of things in the objective view, because moral principles are things. Yet in subjective morality, the term morality is qualified as a person. People's opinions of right and wrong are expressions of their own selves, as in the way they see things. This disconnect creates a false dichotomy because a false premise is being presented.

So in the psycholinguistics we're actually debating whether morality is a person or a thing, which is why I asked you from the get go "What exactly is a right/wrong independent of humanity when we're the ones experiencing what's right and wrong collectively?" If you recall you called objective morality nonsense. At the time I could completely appreciate your sentiment, but I articulated it as the term not being defined well enough. From then on, you assumed I was in over my head and began discounting what I say offhand as if I had no understanding of the topic.

Yes, you are in way over your head.

The above is a Q.E.D. to my assertions.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think you are over-mystifying the idea of liking something. Sure Jill experiences liking as a subjective set of qualia or whatever. But the liking itself is happening as a set of neurophysiologies that are at least in principle objectively observable.

In other words, liking is something she, her brain and body, is basically doing, and an objective event that happens in the world. Secondarily, there's her experience of that doing, those acts. That part is subjective.

Most of your post seems to be dealing with my judgement about whether she likes ice cream. But inherent difficulties in assessing an objective event dont make the actual fact of the matter inherently subjective. For instance we all seem to categorize the origin of the universe as some matter available for objective scrutiny, even though much about it is currently inaccessible.

I think we are basically on the same page. But, you are right I didn't adequately address things from Jill's perspective.

Let's make it easier. If I say I like ice cream, it is objectively true that I had an experience. It is objectively true that I categorize that experience as "like". There is, of course, a difference for me to "know myself" and to "know someone else." I am effectively, the object reporting on the state of the object.

I am not saying anything mystical about Jill's experience. As you note, most of what I wrote is about our ability to assess someone else's experience.

 

[Moral Orel]

Let's make it easier. If I say I like ice cream, it is objectively true that I had an experience. It is objectively true that I categorize that experience as "like". There is, of course, a difference for me to "know myself" and to "know someone else." I am effectively, the object reporting on the state of the object.

Okay, I think you and @durangodawood and I all agree on this that we can know for a fact how we've judged things. So when I say, "I like chocolate ice cream" I know that is an objective fact.

I am not saying anything mystical about Jill's experience. As you note, most of what I wrote is about our ability to assess someone else's experience.

You guys are touching on a distinction I think is important to the discussion. There are two kinds of "opinion" and I think there are a lot of folks in these threads that are equivocating between the two.

1 I say, "Chocolate ice cream is tasty."

2 You say, "Orel likes chocolate ice cream"

In 1, my claim is not a fact at all. It is purely subjective. It is nothing more than a description of my experience with chocolate ice cream.

In 2, you claim that, "Orel likes chocolate ice cream" is true because you believe but do not know that it is an objective fact. It is the same as saying, "Our next president will be Tom Hanks". I may believe but not know that is a fact because it hasn't happened (or not happened) yet, and that makes it "opinion".

In 2, what is subjective is our judgement of the evidence for the objective fact.

In terms of morality, morality is subjective if it is like 1. Morality is objective if it is like 2.

If there are no moral facts, then morality is subjective. If there are moral facts, then morality is objective. Not knowing what those moral facts are and having to guess doesn't make morality subjective. The only thing that would be subjective in that scenario would be our judgement of the evidence for those objective facts.

That's why inserting a God still wouldn't make morality objective. Even God can't cause, "Chocolate ice cream is tasty" to become an objective fact.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, you are in way over your head.

The above is a Q.E.D. to my assertions.

Yeah that's kinda funny since you knew so much and I knew so little and yet from the get go I knew that love others as you would want to be loved was a reasonable standard to conclude there is an objective morality.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yeah that's kinda funny since you knew so much and I knew so little and yet from the get go I knew that love others as you would want to be loved was a reasonable standard to conclude objective morality.

Haha, no, thats an empty assertion.