Is morality objective?

[Gordon]

Doesn't moral Zeitgeist just boil down to "It's bad because they say it's bad.
I
You need to establish that socially divisive is bad rather than just socially divisive.

Notions of what is 'good' or 'bad' are subjective opinions, where the zeitgeist is a consensus that may well change: a strong social consensus is still an aggregation of opinion, even when expressed as axioms that seem self evident.

So I'd say that 'bad' was a synonym for 'socially divisive'; if theft solely for personal gain wasn't regarded as being socially divisive (or 'bad') then it would be the case that if the loss of personal property due to theft solely for personal gain was somehow now acceptable what then what would be the incentive be to work and use the resources from that work to provide for, say, our children (provided that said work isn't in the insurance industry, which would simply disappear)?

So, generally speaking, we tend to prosecute those who steal solely for personal gain, and the subjective consensus, that is the current moral zeitgeist, supports this approach.       

[ProfessorDavey]

Notions of what is 'good' or 'bad' are subjective opinions, where the zeitgeist is a consensus that may well change: a strong social consensus is still an aggregation of opinion, even when expressed as axioms that seem self evident.

I agree.

So I'd say that that 'bad' was a synonym for 'socially divisive'; if theft solely for personal gain wasn't regarded as being socially divisive (or 'bad') then it would be the case that if the loss of personal property due to theft solely for personal gain was somehow now acceptable what then what would be the incentive be to work and use the resources from that work to provide for, say, our children (provided that said work isn't in the insurance industry, which would simply disappear)?

So, generally speaking, we tend to prosecute those who steal solely for personal gain, and the subjective consensus, that is the current moral zeitgeist, supports this approach.       

Indeed - and it is perfectly possible to think of an alternative society that is structured around shared belongings where the notion of stealing would be anathema - in that it was an accepted 'good' that people shared and therefore it was perfectly acceptable to take an item because you had a need for it. And the same applied to others. Indeed in this social culture the moral 'bad' would probably be the notion of 'belongings' themselves, i.e. considering that an item was owned by you as an individual rather than collectively available to the society.

Would that society be intrinsically morally better or worse than ours - I'm not sure we could say - it would certainly be different, but surely the key would be societal acceptance of that different approach to 'property'.

[Sriram]

Not sure these kinds of 'reality is just an illusion' arguments really cut any ice.

Many of the instruments we use to indicate phenomena aren't really based on our sensory perception at all (although we might have designed them) so it is hard to argue that the manifestation of those phenomena only exist if we are measuring them.

And on that latter point, measurements from deep space are a great example. We are 'observing' things that actually occurred billions of years ago. Can we really credibly claim that they only manifest when we observe them, given that they actually manifested billions of years before humans even existed, let alone whether or not we have the technology to observe them.

This is not merely to do with QM issues about the need for observation.

Taken simply as a fact...our perception, cognition and understanding is based entirely on our senses, brain and other processes. Our classical reality is based entirely on this. These processes have evolved under specific conditions for specific purposes. Without these processes what exactly objective reality will be is impossible to even comprehend.

Will it be strings and multiple dimensions and fields interacting with one another or what exactly? 

Sorry I am digressing from the morality discussion....but objective morality would be a part of objective reality. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Taken simply as a fact...our perception, cognition and understanding is based entirely on our senses, brain and other processes.

I don't think that is true - I used the example of observation of deep space events. This isn't a person looking through a telescope, but sophisticated instrumentation taking readings which are then transferred to computational analytical equipment, and likely reproduced for storage and backup. All this occurs without direct involvement of human senses at all.

Our classical reality is based entirely on this. These processes have evolved under specific conditions for specific purposes. Without these processes what exactly objective reality will be is impossible to even comprehend.

But what about my example. So via analytical instrumentation we detect light etc from a massively distant source. Although we are detecting (observing) this now, the actual event happened billions of years ago, it is just that it takes so long for the light or other waves etc to travel to earth and they happen to pass by us at this point. So the actual event we are observing occurred way, way before humans evolved, in some cases before our solar system even existed. How is that consistent with your assertion, given that the event occurred before these human faculties evolved and there would have been no guarantee (indeed it would be an incredibly low probability) that (looking forward from the point of the event) that these faculties would even evolve at the right time and in the right place for the light etc to happen to be passing by at the right time to be detected.

Are you some how claiming that the event that occurred billions of years ago has no objective reality but only exists in a subjective sense due to human existence. That seems bonkers as it would require after-the-event determination of whether the event actually existed or not. In other words you'd have to argue that an event that occurred billions of years ago wouldn't have occurred if humans had failed to evolve in the right time and place billions of years later. Total non-sense.

[Spud]

The latter: because any notion of 'good' or 'bad' is subjective opinion.

Indeed, notions of good or bad are subjective opinion, but does that preclude slavery also being objectively bad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Notions of what is 'good' or 'bad' are subjective opinions, where the zeitgeist is a consensus that may well change: a strong social consensus is still an aggregation of opinion, even when expressed as axioms that seem self evident.

So I'd say that 'bad' was a synonym for 'socially divisive'; if theft solely for personal gain wasn't regarded as being socially divisive (or 'bad') then it would be the case that if the loss of personal property due to theft solely for personal gain was somehow now acceptable what then what would be the incentive be to work and use the resources from that work to provide for, say, our children (provided that said work isn't in the insurance industry, which would simply disappear)?

So, generally speaking, we tend to prosecute those who steal solely for personal gain, and the subjective consensus, that is the current moral zeitgeist, supports this approach.       

Blabber which leaves the important questions unanswered.
We know that people’s opinions of what is good and bad is subjective but if definitions of Good and bad are equally vague and subjective the. the very words are meaningless and so concensus is meaningless.

[Nearly Sane]

Blabber which leaves the important questions unanswered.
We know that people’s opinions of what is good and bad is subjective but if definitions of Good and bad are equally vague and subjective the. the very words are meaningless and so concensus is meaningless.

How do you move beyond people's opinions?

[Sriram]

I don't think that is true - I used the example of observation of deep space events. This isn't a person looking through a telescope, but sophisticated instrumentation taking readings which are then transferred to computational analytical equipment, and likely reproduced for storage and backup. All this occurs without direct involvement of human senses at all.
But what about my example. So via analytical instrumentation we detect light etc from a massively distant source. Although we are detecting (observing) this now, the actual event happened billions of years ago, it is just that it takes so long for the light or other waves etc to travel to earth and they happen to pass by us at this point. So the actual event we are observing occurred way, way before humans evolved, in some cases before our solar system even existed. How is that consistent with your assertion, given that the event occurred before these human faculties evolved and there would have been no guarantee (indeed it would be an incredibly low probability) that (looking forward from the point of the event) that these faculties would even evolve at the right time and in the right place for the light etc to happen to be passing by at the right time to be detected.

Are you some how claiming that the event that occurred billions of years ago has no objective reality but only exists in a subjective sense due to human existence. That seems bonkers as it would require after-the-event determination of whether the event actually existed or not. In other words you'd have to argue that an event that occurred billions of years ago wouldn't have occurred if humans had failed to evolve in the right time and place billions of years later. Total non-sense.

You are missing the point.  You are starting off with the same assumption that....our consciousness is an emergent property of our biological development and therefore any event preceding the arising of our consciousness has to necessarily be independent of our consciousness. OK.

Think of the entire experience of the world that we are having as just a VR creation. A VR world does not exist objectively except as pixels or whatever....and yet we experience it vividly. It is all in our mind and does not exist objectively. We can all nevertheless experience the same VR world and even interact with each other using different terminals. 

It is similar with our world. 

Once our sensory and brain processing (the headset) is removed....the 'real' world will disappear. What remains or rather what external reality will 'look' like and 'feel' like  independent of our human perception we cannot even comprehend. Just think about it.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are missing the point.

No I'm not - I am focussing on reality and evidence not on unevidenced assertion. 

You are starting off with the same assumption that....our consciousness is an emergent property of our biological development and therefore any event preceding the arising of our consciousness has to necessarily be independent of our consciousness. OK.

Yup, that's right. Why? Because we have ample evidence that consciousness is linked to neurophysiological complexity that has arisen via evolution. We have no evidence that our consciousness can, or does, exist beyond the confines of our individual neurophysiology.

Think of the entire experience of the world that we are having as just a VR creation. A VR world does not exist objectively except as pixels or whatever....and yet we experience it vividly. It is all in our mind and does not exist objectively. We can all nevertheless experience the same VR world and even interact with each other using different terminals.

So you are arguing that we are all existing in a VR world - sure, I know the thought experiments, but then you need some kind of evidence to support that notion, which of course you don't have. Merely positing a theoretically plausible, but unevidenced and highly unlikely explanation doesn't mean that it should be treated as somehow 'equal' to an explanation that is supported by massive amounts of evidence.

It is similar with our world. 

Once our sensory and brain processing (the headset) is removed....the 'real' world will disappear. What remains or rather what external reality will 'look' like and 'feel' like  independent of our human perception we cannot even comprehend. Just think about it.

Oh dear - on to the woo Sriram. Just because you write down some unevidenced assertion doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it equivalent to an alternative argument that is based on evidence.

So if you want to assert that we are living in some kind of VR-equivalent world then over to you to provide evidence for this. And does this mean that there is just a single person and everything else is VR - in which case that single person must be me (but you would probably conclude that this single person must be you). But if there is more than one person in this VR world then it isn't really VR, is it Sriram as we would presumably both exist and would presumably both be interacting with each other fundamentally in the real world not the VR world even if the medium for that interaction was VR.

[ProfessorDavey]

A VR world does not exist objectively except as pixels or whatever....and yet we experience it vividly. It is all in our mind and does not exist objectively.

But our eyes (for example) are just like that - they have cells which are able to receive photons of light and convert them into electrical signals that are processes in our brains to produce an image, something we 'see'. But that doesn't mean that what we are 'seeing' does not objectively exist. And if we are able to detect this thing (that we are seeing) in a whole range of other ways, both via our senses or via objective measurement, then why would we not consider that this thing actually exists in an objective sense, regardless of whether we are here to see, touch, smell etc it.

[Sriram]

No I'm not - I am focussing on reality and evidence not on unevidenced assertion. 
Yup, that's right. Why? Because we have ample evidence that consciousness is linked to neurophysiological complexity that has arisen via evolution. We have no evidence that our consciousness can, or does, exist beyond the confines of our individual neurophysiology.
So you are arguing that we are all existing in a VR world - sure, I know the thought experiments, but then you need some kind of evidence to support that notion, which of course you don't have. Merely positing a theoretically plausible, but unevidenced and highly unlikely explanation doesn't mean that it should be treated as somehow 'equal' to an explanation that is supported by massive amounts of evidence.
Oh dear - on to the woo Sriram. Just because you write down some unevidenced assertion doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it equivalent to an alternative argument that is based on evidence.

So if you want to assert that we are living in some kind of VR-equivalent world then over to you to provide evidence for this. And does this mean that there is just a single person and everything else is VR - in which case that single person must be me (but you would probably conclude that this single person must be you). But if there is more than one person in this VR world then it isn't really VR, is it Sriram as we would presumably both exist and would presumably both be interacting with each other fundamentally in the real world not the VR world even if the medium for that interaction was VR.

No....it is not some imaginary or unlikely concept.  It is really true that the world we see, feel, hear and perceive is created for us in our mind.

Different realities exist at different levels. Viruses perceive a different reality. Electrons would perceive a different reality. Strings would perceive a different reality.

The classical world is just one perception of reality at a certain scale. Independent of our mental processes what reality truly is, cannot be comprehended. This is not a speculative idea. It really is true!

[ProfessorDavey]

No....it is not some imaginary or unlikely concept.  It is really true that the world we see, feel, hear and perceive is created for us in our mind.

No it isn't - it is merely your assertion.

Viruses perceive a different reality.

No they don't - viruses are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.

Electrons would perceive a different reality.

No they don't - electrons are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.

Strings would perceive a different reality.

No they don't - strings are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.

Mechanistic interactions between entities (which viruses, electrons etc may have) isn't the same as perception which requires awareness - a virus or an electron may interact with something and that may cause an effect but is has no awareness that this has happened as neither have any consciousness.

The classical world is just one perception of reality at a certain scale. Independent of our mental processes what reality truly is, cannot be comprehended.

Baseless assertion.

This is not a speculative idea. It really is true!

Blimey uber-bullish baseless assertion. If this is true then I presume you will be able to prove this to be true with evidence.

Simply writing something down on a message board doesn't make it true.

Thinking something is true doesn't make it true.

Wanting something to be true (regardless of how much you really, really, really want it to be true) doesn't make it true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you move beyond people's opinions?

I think we have to get onto the Common definition of good and bad before we can even qualify that someone even has an opinion and certainly before we can meaningfully talk of consensus of Good and bad

[Nearly Sane]

I think we have to get onto the Common definition of good and bad before we can even qualify that someone even has an opinion and certainly before we can meaningfully talk of consensus of Good and bad

And again, how do you move beyond people's opinions?

[Sriram]

No it isn't - it is merely your assertion.
No they don't - viruses are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.
No they don't - electrons are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.
No they don't - strings are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.

Mechanistic interactions between entities (which viruses, electrons etc may have) isn't the same as perception which requires awareness - a virus or an electron may interact with something and that may cause an effect but is has no awareness that this has happened as neither have any consciousness.
Baseless assertion.
Blimey uber-bullish baseless assertion. If this is true then I presume you will be able to prove this to be true with evidence.

Simply writing something down on a message board doesn't make it true.

Thinking something is true doesn't make it true.

Wanting something to be true (regardless of how much you really, really, really want it to be true) doesn't make it true.

There is nothing to prove here.  It is a known fact that our perceptions are created within our minds....and independent of our senses and brain how reality would be perceived cannot be known. 

I was referring to viruses and electrons just to indicate differences in scale.  They would perceive reality differently if they could. This i thought, was obvious. 

[ProfessorDavey]

They would perceive reality differently if they could. This i thought, was obvious. 

No Sriram - it isn't obvious at all, it is a really, really stupid comment.

If a virus could perceive then it clearly wouldn't be a virus.

If an electron could perceive then it clearly wouldn't be an electron.

This is just classic anthropocentric anthropomorphising non-sense.

[Sriram]

Ok...thanks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And again, how do you move beyond people's opinions?

What I am trying to say is that we don't even know what they are expressing an opinion on. Is it taste, is it what doesn't cause suffering, is it social division? Effectively consensus becomes harder the more we delve into what we mean.

[Gordon]

What I am trying to say is that we don't even know what they are expressing an opinion on. Is it taste, is it what doesn't cause suffering, is it social division?

Yes you do: because they've told you what their opinion is.

Effectively consensus becomes harder the more we delve into what we mean.

Why?

[Nearly Sane]

What I am trying to say is that we don't even know what they are expressing an opinion on. Is it taste, is it what doesn't cause suffering, is it social division? Effectively consensus becomes harder the more we delve into what we mean.

if you take this position, then you are not only arguing against objective morality, but against any idea of morality. Is that your intention?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

if you take this position, then you are not only arguing against objective morality, but against any idea of morality. Is that your intention?

No, I think I am suggesting that morality may be something than an opinion based on reason and that subjective opinion at it's extreme should render as many opinions on morality and moral problems as people holding them, it is a wonder therefore that we can talk at all about a concensus.
Morality comes therefore under a different category to reasoned thought or taste and something tighter  and more concrete and so to me it suggests some form of moral realism where there are moral equations to be worked out by another faculty and where there are right and wrong answers irrespective of ''opinion''.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I think I am suggesting that morality may be something than an opinion based on reason and that subjective opinion at it's extreme should render as many opinions on morality and moral problems as people holding them, it is a wonder therefore that we can talk at all about a concensus.
Morality comes therefore under a different category to reasoned thought or taste and something tighter  and more concrete and so to me it suggests some form of moral realism where there are moral equations to be worked out by another faculty and where there are right and wrong answers irrespective of ''opinion''.

Have you missed some words out here?

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I think I am suggesting that morality may be something than an opinion based on reason and that subjective opinion at it's extreme should render as many opinions on morality and moral problems as people holding them, it is a wonder therefore that we can talk at all about a concensus.
Morality comes therefore under a different category to reasoned thought or taste and something tighter  and more concrete and so to me it suggests some form of moral realism where there are moral equations to be worked out by another faculty and where there are right and wrong answers irrespective of ''opinion''.

I don't think that morality or ethics is merely personal taste in the manner that you seem to be suggesting those who disagree with you do. It isn't the equivalence of liking Mozart.

Firstly morality or ethics involves consideration of things (actions, attitudes etc) that may be considered to be right or wrong - in that context it isn't like Mozart - it is irrelevant whether you like Mozart if I do. But morality and ethics involves attitudes and behaviours towards one another so it is broadened beyond the individual.

And I don't think that we are necessarily dealing with a consensus view, although that would be valuable - no we are dealing with societal norms, that which is accepted broadly within a particular society at a particular time. And those societal norms change over time and will be different from one society to another. And if when we consider our own individual view on what is right or wrong does not align with the societal norm then we can (perhaps we should) use argument to try to persuade that society to shift its accepted norms. This is surely how our morality and ethics evolve over time. And again, this is nothing like liking Mozart - there is no onus on me to persuade you that Mozart is great, it is purely a personal view and you aren't affected whether or not I hold that view.

So morality and ethics evolve and are subjective, but that subjectivity goes beyond the individual, it is societal, in effect subjective at societal level. What it isn't is objective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think that morality or ethics is merely personal taste in the manner that you seem to be suggesting those who disagree with you do.

In what manner of personal taste do you think morality and ethics are then?

Firstly morality or ethics involves consideration of things (actions, attitudes etc) that may be considered to be right or wrong

but by using the word ''considering'' you are suggesting that this is somehow reasoned out. The question is how is the notion of Good and bad reasoned out, by logic?, by goals?, by social cohesion? What role does just feeling that a bad thing or a good thing has or may be about to happen play?

- in that context it isn't like Mozart

so what is it like?.

And I don't think that we are necessarily dealing with a consensus view, although that would be valuable - no we are dealing with societal norms

Ah so you are agreeing that when we are ''doing'' morality, thinking rationally is not paramount or do you think there is some collective social mind?

, that which is accepted broadly within a particular society at a particular time. And those societal norms change over time and will be different from one society to another.

Isn't that statement too vague to be functionally helpful in understanding morality? After all change is built in and if thought is not involved since only individuals think we need to know how normal social morality specifically changes.

And if when we consider our own individual view on what is right or wrong does not align with the societal norm then we can (perhaps we should) use argument to try to persuade that society to shift its accepted norms.

But when you say we must argue moral alternative or novelty what is it we are appealing to. In other words, how do you propose to change the mind of something that doesn't have a mind i.e. society

This is surely how our morality and ethics evolve over time.

Then I suggest there must be the moral equivalent of DNA and the moral equivalent of fossils and offspring resembling the parent in your scheme.

I think I would suggest a model that rather than changing and evolving, morality is more akin to science, a kind of stripping back to see the underlying truth and that description has at least the merit of being less vague than palming it off as change and evolution.