Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?

[Dryghtons Toe]

HT wrote:

Perhaps you have misunderstood. (Having an opinion that X is objectively morally good) is self-refuting, because 'objective', we agreed some time ago, means 'independent of opinion'.

So 'having an opinion...' refutes (or cancels out, if your prefer) '...objectively...' It equates to saying 'subjectively objective', which is an oxymoron.

Same mistake again ‘m afraid HT. Something existing independent of opinion doesn’t mean we can’t have an opinion about it….it just means its not dependent on that opinion for its objectivity. You are still assuming that if we have an opinion of something is the same as something being only an opinion but this is not the case.

Regards

DT

No, it doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on it, I agree. Good job that's not what I'm saying, isn't it?

Once again, you have misunderstood.

If I say that I have a negative positive number, the 'negative' and 'positive' cancel out, and the number is negative.

If I say that I have a subjective opinion on objective morality, the 'subjective' and 'objective' cancel out, and we are left with a subjective morality.

ht

No it doesn't, it only cancels out if OM depended on my opinion for its objectivity, but I don't think that and I don't think Alan does either. you can't have a negative positive, because of the rules of maths. Subjective opinion by contrast is a property of my beliefs  and If my subjective opinion is about X being an objective fact AND X is also is an objective fact (whether I know it or not) then my subjective belief about X does nothing to negate its objectivity.

Regards

DT

[Dryghtons Toe]

DT - I am intrigued by one of your points above, where you talk about qualities in the act itself.  I just wonder what you mean by this, as it suggests that there is an act, along with its qualities, which exist independently.  This is starting to remind me of the tree falling in the forest and so on, but while we can conceive of an act which is not observed, we can't experience one.  I suppose then we are back to the issue of subjective/objective, and the oddity of something being wrong without anyone thinking so.

Hi Wiggs,

Yes this goes back to the scientific realism vs irrealism point we touched on before- if you were a scientific realist you would believe that our observations of the world are accurate representations of the way the world is and someone who is both a scientific realist and a moral realist would say the same for how we experience morally relevance in the world. If you're not a scientific realist then it you're not going to except this, nevertheless the scientific anti-realist would still understand that we can make a meaningful distinction between subjective and objective... a flower petal is objective in a way that our taste in marmite isn't... the first, on an anti-realist view of science is conception dependent but not perception dependent, while the latter is both. There is a prominent form of moral realism that embraces a scientific anti-realism annd argues morality is objective in exactly this way (i.e. conception dependent but not perception dependent).

Regards

DT

[Dryghtons Toe]

Is it clear what constitute's a moral act?  Is it an act which benefits or at least does least harm to other humans?  If so, why why would a god who created every living thing on Earth only consider harm to humans and not dags and cats, bears and leopards - or for that matter, grass and trees!

Objective morality must take into account the what, as well as the why.

The only person who has talked about 'least harm to humans' was Jakswan I think when he tried to define his axioms. I'd definitely expect acts towards animals to count as morally relevant which is why I am a vegetarian.

Regards

DT

[Dryghtons Toe]

Hi enki

Hi DT,

In response to your post 133:
Quote
I may be wrong, but I think you are misinterpreting what Alan was trying to do with this – he certainly claims you are all misinterpreting him as he said above, whether I am too only he can confirm. I don’t think he is saying that if you think TACTDJFF is morally wrong in all circumstances it is an example of OM BECAUSE you think it,

But I didn't say this. I said that he suggested that anyone who thinks that TACTDJFF is morally wrong(or even morally right) in all circumstances should also logically accept that OM exists.(see his Mess 1312 in the original thread). I am very happy to accept that this is NOT a valid argument for OM in itself because it is simply opinion. I repeat that I have never stated that I believe TACTDJFF is wrong in all circumstances.
Quote
rather I reckon he is trying to say that TACTDJFF is an example of something that reveals our basic intuitions about morality such that we couldn’t ever consider it right even if there was only one person around to have a view on it, and that was the psychopath doing the torturing….in other words I think he was hoping this would get people to admit that opinions about TACTDJFF were irrelevant and it had to be considered wrong because of fundamental features inherent in the act itself. He then no doubt wanted to go on and say it is just this intuition – that moral wrongness is inherent in the qualities of the act itself rather than in anyone’s opinions about them that show the objective character of OM.

I have understood this from the start. Indeed, at an early stage, Alan suggested this. He sees the idea of TACTDJFF as being wrong as 'blindingly obvious'(post 83). The problem with this approach is that whatever reasons Alan(or others) have given for justifying the immorality of TACTDJFF, they still remain opinions, and do not necessarily point to the existence of an objective morality which is extraneous to human beings. Furthermore, intuition, I would suggest, is no argument for the existence of OM. That is not to say that morality is not inherent in the act itself, but to suggest that this is so, rather than being a human construct, needs some more objective method for reaching that conclusion.

Disagree that metaphysical questions need an objective method - in fact they often can't possibly have a provable objective method, although they may well have a method depending on your account of moral realism. Bit its just wrong to suggest looking to reason from our intuitions invalidates the objectivity of anything we believe that's based on them.. in fact everything we believe is based on foundational assumptions and intuitions we have no objective way of demonstrating including all science and philosophy. We all assume for example that our memory and reason are generally reliable mechanisms that don't routinely mislead us, and no argument or observation we could make or conclusion based on them could possibly demonstrate that was true. Asking for objective methods to solve metaphysical questions is a misapplication of a scientific methodology to questions where it simply can't apply.

On the first part of this paragraph I have already said this when I suggested in Mess 105 of this thread "Of course holding an opinion on anything could be true/false, accurate/inaccurate, valid/invalid."

On the second part, if we are to abandon the sort of proof that I (and others) request, then I would happily agree that our theories of morality have to be tested, and the nature and character of our moral thought have to be studied, and, as a most important rider, we have to also try to find the origins of our moral thought and behaviour.

Not much disagreement with this then although I'd expect we'd disagree on what the origins of moral thought are or on an 'objective' way of identifying what this was.

[jakswan]

Thanks. So lets start on (1); Can you give an example of an objective moral value and how you know its objective without resorting anyone's opinion?

If morality is objective then every moral judgement that is correct is an example....so if discrimination against people for being gay is wrong its objectively wrong. You can't read OM like a list but we can make progress towards discovering it.

So short answer would have been 'no', your one of those 'why use five words when 100 will do' types aren't you!

How we do that is dependent on the account we gave of how OM exists.

Like its subjective.

So if OM is grounded in God for example part of discovering OM will be deepening our experience of God and our understanding of his character and intention. How successful we are at this will define how successful we are at recognising OM.

But if its the great fairy or Santa then that will be different, like it changes from person to person, based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Perhaps we need to go over what objective means because I don't think you understand the basics.

[jakswan]

Is it clear what constitute's a moral act?  Is it an act which benefits or at least does least harm to other humans?  If so, why why would a god who created every living thing on Earth only consider harm to humans and not dags and cats, bears and leopards - or for that matter, grass and trees!

Objective morality must take into account the what, as well as the why.

The only person who has talked about 'least harm to humans' was Jakswan I think when he tried to define his axioms. I'd definitely expect acts towards animals to count as morally relevant which is why I am a vegetarian.

Regards

DT

Yes that was a very basic outline of my morality so don't get too carried away with it, you were too quick to label me last time.

[horsethorn]

Once again, you have misunderstood.

If I say that I have a negative positive number, the 'negative' and 'positive' cancel out, and the number is negative.

If I say that I have a subjective opinion on objective morality, the 'subjective' and 'objective' cancel out, and we are left with a subjective morality.

Who is saying that they have a subjective opinion on objective morality though?

Everyone. By definition.

If I say that I am of the opinion that the speed of light is c and will be c irrespective of whether anyone agrees, I am offering an opinion, but not a subjective one. I am stating what I believe the truth of an objective matter to be.

All opinions are, by definition, subjective.

If I say that I am of the opinion that TACTDJFF is wrong and will be wrong irrespective of whether anyone agrees, I am offering an opinion, but we do not know at this stage whether I am offering a subjective opinion or whether I am stating what I believe the truth of an objective matter to be.

All opinions are, by definition, subjective.

In order to say that offering an opinion on X being objective is self-refuting, you first need to presuppose that the opinion is of the subjective variety.

Nope. All opinions are, by definition, subjective.

ht

[horsethorn]

HT wrote:

Perhaps you have misunderstood. (Having an opinion that X is objectively morally good) is self-refuting, because 'objective', we agreed some time ago, means 'independent of opinion'.

So 'having an opinion...' refutes (or cancels out, if your prefer) '...objectively...' It equates to saying 'subjectively objective', which is an oxymoron.

Same mistake again ‘m afraid HT. Something existing independent of opinion doesn’t mean we can’t have an opinion about it….it just means its not dependent on that opinion for its objectivity. You are still assuming that if we have an opinion of something is the same as something being only an opinion but this is not the case.

Regards

DT

No, it doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on it, I agree. Good job that's not what I'm saying, isn't it?

Once again, you have misunderstood.

If I say that I have a negative positive number, the 'negative' and 'positive' cancel out, and the number is negative.

If I say that I have a subjective opinion on objective morality, the 'subjective' and 'objective' cancel out, and we are left with a subjective morality.

ht

No it doesn't, it only cancels out if OM depended on my opinion for its objectivity,

Nope. It cancels out because you have subjective opinion of something allegedly objective.

but I don't think that and I don't think Alan does either.

If Alan doesn't think that, why does he always begin with someone's opinion?

you can't have a negative positive, because of the rules of maths.

That's right. So, are you saying that you *can* have a subjective objective?

Subjective opinion by contrast is a property of my beliefs  and If my subjective opinion is about X being an objective fact AND X is also is an objective fact (whether I know it or not) then my subjective belief about X does nothing to negate its objectivity.

Agreed. However, for OM, we have no means (so far, despite asking many times) to determine whether a particular situational morality is objective or not.

It may well be that your subjective morality opinion matches the objective morality of a given situation, but we have no way to tell.

ht

[Nearly Sane]

Whether one phrases an opinion as if it relates to an objective truth or not, has no bearing on the existence of such a truth.

I am much more interested in Dryghton's Toe idea of something referred to.as 'moral experience' as there seem to be some implied claims about what it is which give some indication of morality not being purely opinion as taste. Please expand.

[Synonym]

All opinions are, by definition, subjective.

So having an opinion on anything, whether you are making a value or aesthetic judgment, or whether you are expressing what you consider the truth of a factual matter to be, is by definition subjective.

So when I opine that global warming is occurring, the subjectivity of my opinion cancels out any potential objectivity of global warming occurring, and leaves us with global warming occurring being subjective.

Or we could make a distinction between opinions on subjective and objective matters, and say that having an opinion on a moral issue necessarily leading to subjective morality, presupposes that the opinion is on a subjective matter in the first place.

[jakswan]

So having an opinion on anything, whether you are making a value or aesthetic judgment, or whether you are expressing what you consider the truth of a factual matter to be, is by definition subjective.

Yes.

So when I opine that global warming is occurring, the subjectivity of my opinion cancels out any potential objectivity of global warming occurring, and leaves us with global warming occurring being subjective.

No the statement 'global warming occurring' is true / false independent of your opinion, the statement 'my opinion global warming occurring' is not true / false independent of your opinion.

Or we could make a distinction between opinions on subjective and objective matters, and say that having an opinion on a moral issue necessarily leading to subjective morality, presupposes that the opinion is on a subjective matter in the first place.

We make the distinction of subjective / objective because the truth of a claim doesn't change according to subject making it.

[horsethorn]

^ wot 'e sed.

ht

[Synonym]

Jakswan not sure what your point is. You explain the difference between something being objective or subjective. OK, but the claim was that offering an opinion on a moral matter had a kind of cancelling effect and turned the moral matter into a subjective matter.

If you agree that a matter being objective is unnaffected by someone's opinion on it, then you should agree that we cannot conclude a matter is subjective because of an opinion on it.

[BeRational]

Jakswan not sure what your point is. You explain the difference between something being objective or subjective. OK, but the claim was that offering an opinion on a moral matter had a kind of cancelling effect and turned the moral matter into a subjective matter.

If you agree that a matter being objective is unnaffected by someone's opinion on it, then you should agree that we cannot conclude a matter is subjective because of an opinion on it.

Moral questions are always a matter of someones opinion, even huge numbers of people.

Some things are fact, like the SOL in a vacuum, and can be measured so I can remove opinion.

How do you remove subjective opinion from some moral question?

[Enki]

Hi DT,

From your reply 153:

Disagree that metaphysical questions need an objective method - in fact they often can't possibly have a provable objective method, although they may well have a method depending on your account of moral realism. Bit its just wrong to suggest looking to reason from our intuitions invalidates the objectivity of anything we believe that's based on them.. in fact everything we believe is based on foundational assumptions and intuitions we have no objective way of demonstrating including all science and philosophy. We all assume for example that our memory and reason are generally reliable mechanisms that don't routinely mislead us, and no argument or observation we could make or conclusion based on them could possibly demonstrate that was true. Asking for objective methods to solve metaphysical questions is a misapplication of a scientific methodology to questions where it simply can't apply.

I don't have anything against the idea of OM at all, in the same way that I don't have any problem with the existence of a God.

I agree that OM does not seem to lend itself be demonstrated by any naturalistic method and  I would agree with you that OM isn't invalidated by the lack of an objective method.  But it isn't supported either. So, what we seem to be left with is intuitive assumption. William Lane Craig seems to state this when he asserts 'Objective moral values and duties do exist' in the third of his 'Five arguments for God' (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god), and backs it up by simply saying that people believe that this is true.

Unfortunately the trouble as far as the intuitive approach goes, I personally don't feel that OM exists just as I feel that no God exists. However, even my own intuitions do not satisfy me, because I see so many examples of the intuitive approach alone leading to contradictory assumptions. So, for me, the intuitive approach is beset with difficulties.


Now if we take the example of TACTDJFF, on all sorts of levels(including the intuitive approach) I see this as morally wrong, but only because I am a human being. If no human beings existed, and we substitute other entities for human beings in the original example, my judgement of right/wrong becomes meaningless and I see no reason to imbue the idea of TACTDJFF in this case with any moral dimension at all. Only as a human being does the idea of morality seem  meaningful. Hence, I suggest that morality is a human construct, although I would accept that certain other animal species show some forms of proto-morality certainly.


Alternatively, to convince me that OM exists, or that there are moral truths associated with particular acts, some form of demonstration backing up such a belief((or opinion) is needed that this is so. As none seems to be forthcoming, then I am left with what I find to be compelling evidence that humanity's focus on the moral dimension is in fact the result of evolutionary traits.

Not much disagreement with this then although I'd expect we'd disagree on what the origins of moral thought are or on an 'objective' way of identifying what this was.

Fair enough.

[jakswan]

Jakswan not sure what your point is. You explain the difference between something being objective or subjective. OK, but the claim was that offering an opinion on a moral matter had a kind of cancelling effect and turned the moral matter into a subjective matter.

If you agree that a matter being objective is unnaffected by someone's opinion on it, then you should agree that we cannot conclude a matter is subjective because of an opinion on it.

You seem to often post on these topics where your main assertion is 'objective morality could exist', not really debating that. Al's position is that 'objective morality does exist' we are asking for evidence / method so that he can back up his claim.

So far Al has offered 'if you think X is always true independent of anyone's opinion then you must think X is objective', which would be correct. 

However if your position is I think X is true independent of anyone else's opinion then you need not think X is objective.   

[Dryghtons Toe]

So short answer would have been 'no', your one of those 'why use five words when 100 will do' types aren't you! 

No I'm one of those 'when someone asks a question with a silly assumption embed with it, explain why its a silly assumption rather than let them go on talking drivel types.

Quote
How we do that is dependent on the account we gave of how OM exists.

Like its subjective.

That depends whether or not the account you give of morality is objectively true or not, which is the thing we are discussing, so if your assuming it isn't you are just begging the question.
Quote
So if OM is grounded in God for example part of discovering OM will be deepening our experience of God and our understanding of his character and intention. How successful we are at this will define how successful we are at recognising OM.

But if its the great fairy or Santa then that will be different, like it changes from person to person, based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Depends how its grounded in God, if it was based on a traditional divine command theory account that might wash as a critique but I don't hold to that and neither did Alan from what I can tell, so It doesn't.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Yes that was a very basic outline of my morality so don't get too carried away with it, you were too quick to label me last time.

Well the problem with deriving morality from axions is that they are never adequate to express our moral positions which is no doubt why you feel the need to backtrack. You told us twice what your core axiom was on this thread and the last... if you aren't going to say what you mean then you can hardly blame people for thinking you mean what you say.

[Dryghtons Toe]

From HT:

Nope. It cancels out because you have subjective opinion of something allegedly objective.

I have the subjective opinion that Barak Obama exists as an objective being. On your logic that must cancel out that fact that he exists and mean that he is just a figment of my imagination then and will no doubt cease to exist.

The reason your attempt to compare subjectivity to numbers doesn't work is because there are different types of subjectivity.. subjective opinion of a point of view and subjective opinion of a claim to the ontology of an object in itself are very different.

 In terms of point of view, our opinions are as you say always subjective and so in this sense it can never be objective by definition – anything we believe is our subjective belief.

 But that's not true of objects – an object can either (a) exist objectively or (b) it can exist only as an artefact of subjective opinion.
 
We can have a subjective opinion about (a) or (b) and indeed our subjective opinion can relate to the very question of the objectivity of (a) and (b), vut our opinion will have no effect on this at all because the objectivity or subjectivity of the object is logically and ontologically distinct from our opinion about it.

If Alan doesn't think that, why does he always begin with someone's opinion?

Hes trying to show that sope beliefs you already have about morality require you to accept other beliefs

That's right. So, are you saying that you *can* have a subjective objective?

I'm saying you can have a subjective opinion about something that is an objective fact, like my belief in Barak Obama, and also that my subjective opinion about him does not make my claim that he exists objectively 'self refuting', for the reasons explained above.

Agreed. However, for OM, we have no means (so far, despite asking many times) to determine whether a particular situational morality is objective or not

It may well be that your subjective morality opinion matches the objective morality of a given situation, but we have no way to tell.

First bit great you agree! but then claiming subjective beliefs about objective things is 'self-refuting' as you did is incorrect, so your initial statement was wrong. Whether or not we can verify its objectivity on the other hand is a different question entirely and would not be relevant to making my belief ''self-refuting'. Objective existence is an ontological property... why would you possibly think verification made a difference to that??

[Dryghtons Toe]

Moral questions are always a matter of someones opinion, even huge numbers of people.

Some things are fact, like the SOL in a vacuum, and can be measured so I can remove opinion.

How do you remove subjective opinion from some moral question?

You're not removing opinion, you are providing evidence to confirm it....our opinion still exists. But the act of verification doesn't make any difference to SOLs objectivity. Just like alternate universes, we can't ever confirm them, but if you are of the opinion they exist the fact that you can't verify them won't stop them existing if they do.

[Dryghtons Toe]

^ wot 'e sed.

ht

Lol. Nothing in wot he said gives any weight to your claim that having a subjective belief about something being objective is self-refuting.

Jakswan not sure what your point is. You explain the difference between something being objective or subjective. OK, but the claim was that offering an opinion on a moral matter had a kind of cancelling effect and turned the moral matter into a subjective matter.

If you agree that a matter being objective is unnaffected by someone's opinion on it, then you should agree that we cannot conclude a matter is subjective because of an opinion on it.

wot 'e sed

[Dryghtons Toe]

Nearly Sane and Enki will come back to you I'm out of time,

[horsethorn]

From HT:

Nope. It cancels out because you have subjective opinion of something allegedly objective.

I have the subjective opinion that Barak Obama exists as an objective being. On your logic that must cancel out that fact that he exists and mean that he is just a figment of my imagination then and will no doubt cease to exist.

Once again, you have misunderstood.

It's nothing to do with the 'target'. You could have any opinion you like about the existence of Barack. Your opinion would be irrelevant to that, as we have a means of determining his existence.

The contradiction is in the fact that it *is* an opinion, and yet that opinion is the basis of something which is defined to be independent of opinion.

You could also have any opinion you liked about the existence of trees, cars, houses, cups, clouds... Your opinion would be irrelevant to that, as we have a means of determining their existence.

you could have any opinion you like about the existence of the Yeti, Nessie, Bigfoot... Your opinion would be irrelevant to that, as we have a means of determining their existence (which hasn't uncovered any credible evidence yet).

You could also have any opinion you liked about the existence of objective morality... Your opinion would be irrelevant to that, as we have a means of determining its existence. Oh wait, no we don't, because despite the number of times a method has been requested, one has not been forthcoming.

It is my opinion that tea tastes nice. In my opinion, it has always tasted nice and will always taste nice, regardless of whether anyone agrees with me.

It is my opinion that TACTDJFF is wrong, it has always been wrong and will always be wrong, regardless of whether anyone agrees with me.

According to Alan's argument, I believe in both an objective morality and an objective taste.

The reason your attempt to compare subjectivity to numbers doesn't work is because there are different types of subjectivity.. subjective opinion of a point of view and subjective opinion of a claim to the ontology of an object in itself are very different.

 In terms of point of view, our opinions are as you say always subjective and so in this sense it can never be objective by definition – anything we believe is our subjective belief.

 But that's not true of objects – an object can either (a) exist objectively or (b) it can exist only as an artefact of subjective opinion.
 
We can have a subjective opinion about (a) or (b) and indeed our subjective opinion can relate to the very question of the objectivity of (a) and (b), vut our opinion will have no effect on this at all because the objectivity or subjectivity of the object is logically and ontologically distinct from our opinion about it.

Yep.

If Alan doesn't think that, why does he always begin with someone's opinion?

Hes trying to show that sope beliefs you already have about morality require you to accept other beliefs

That's lovely, but they are beliefs/opinions, and therefore are subjective.

That's right. So, are you saying that you *can* have a subjective objective?

I'm saying you can have a subjective opinion about something that is an objective fact, like my belief in Barak Obama, and also that my subjective opinion about him does not make my claim that he exists objectively 'self refuting', for the reasons explained above.

See above.

Agreed. However, for OM, we have no means (so far, despite asking many times) to determine whether a particular situational morality is objective or not

It may well be that your subjective morality opinion matches the objective morality of a given situation, but we have no way to tell.

First bit great you agree!

It's what I have said all along.

but then claiming subjective beliefs about objective things is 'self-refuting' as you did is incorrect, so your initial statement was wrong.

See above.

Whether or not we can verify its objectivity on the other hand is a different question entirely and would not be relevant to making my belief ''self-refuting'. Objective existence is an ontological property... why would you possibly think verification made a difference to that??

I don't. See above.

It's nothing to do with the existence of the thing, it's about claiming that an opinion can be objective.

ht

[jakswan]

No I'm one of those 'when someone asks a question with a silly assumption embed with it, explain why its a silly assumption rather than let them go on talking drivel types.

Look here: Mirror.

That depends whether or not the account you give of morality is objectively true or not, which is the thing we are discussing, so if your assuming it isn't you are just begging the question.

If you think your account of morality is objective then I'm happy for you, if you want to convince me of this as well its time to come up with some decent arguments.

[jakswan]

Yes that was a very basic outline of my morality so don't get too carried away with it, you were too quick to label me last time.

Well the problem with deriving morality from axions is that they are never adequate to express our moral positions which is no doubt why you feel the need to backtrack. You told us twice what your core axiom was on this thread and the last... if you aren't going to say what you mean then you can hardly blame people for thinking you mean what you say.

I'm not backtracking I'm quite happy to discuss my morality in detail if you like, this thread wasn't about that. I would ask you before slapping labels around you clarify a persons position.

It makes you look as if you are creating straw-men and just further undermines and already compromised reputation.