Another Objective Morality thread

[jakswan]

This is mainly for DT I'll first outline my position and then try to summarise DT's. I accept I may misrepresent DT's position but do so in order that he can correct my misunderstanding.

I understand when we talk about morality there are two things that often get conflated, morality (e.g. my morality is based on X) and moral values (I think torture is wrong).

The debate is that DT thinks morality is objective and I think its subjective.

I think there are objective moral values based on my subjective morality. Some before have said this isn't true and offer nothing can be objective based on something subjective but I disagree, I'll explain by way of an analogy.

Lets say we agree to have a kick about and play a game of football outside a building, we have a doorways as goals, the ball touches the door its a goal. These are subjective rules but if the ball touches the door its objectively a goal.

I think morality works in the same way, its not like something entirely subjective like taste where its a simple emotional reaction, its more complicated than that. We don't just purely answer moral questions based on simple emotions (although these often play a part) but we have moral axioms, like a game of football has rules.

So my position is that I think morality is subjective, moral values are objective.

[Outrider]

I can't help it... must resist...

OK - your 'goal' analogy fails: if someone else has a different concept of 'goals' (the ball must pass through the doorway, say) your 'ball touches the door' is not a goal. Both decisions are equally valid, based upon different precepts.

The 'objective morality' based on a god makes no sense. If the morality is objective it's not 'based' on anything - as soon as it's based on something, it's subjective (it's subject to changes in whatever it's based on).

If morality is a god's will, morality is subjective - god could change his mind and decide that slavery was no longer acceptable, say, or eating shellfish was no longer an abomination. If morality is independent of a god it could be objective, but someone would need to demonstrate that. Of course, some moral statements could be objective whilst others were subjective...

O.

[jakswan]

I can't help it... must resist...

Hehe! I know.

OK - your 'goal' analogy fails: if someone else has a different concept of 'goals' (the ball must pass through the doorway, say) your 'ball touches the door' is not a goal. Both decisions are equally valid, based upon different precepts.

They are playing a different game then and if that is the case I'm taking my ball home!

[Outrider]

I can't help it... must resist...

Hehe! I know.

OK - your 'goal' analogy fails: if someone else has a different concept of 'goals' (the ball must pass through the doorway, say) your 'ball touches the door' is not a goal. Both decisions are equally valid, based upon different precepts.

They are playing a different game then and if that is the case I'm taking my ball home!

Hehe...

If they're playing a different game, then your 'goals' and their 'goals' are different - in which case, in the analogy, there are just parallel, equally valid 'moralities'... so they still aren't objective, because everyone has their own.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I can't help it... must resist...

OK - your 'goal' analogy fails: if someone else has a different concept of 'goals' (the ball must pass through the doorway, say) your 'ball touches the door' is not a goal. Both decisions are equally valid, based upon different precepts.

The 'objective morality' based on a god makes no sense. If the morality is objective it's not 'based' on anything - as soon as it's based on something, it's subjective (it's subject to changes in whatever it's based on).

If morality is a god's will, morality is subjective - god could change his mind and decide that slavery was no longer acceptable, say, or eating shellfish was no longer an abomination. If morality is independent of a god it could be objective, but someone would need to demonstrate that. Of course, some moral statements could be objective whilst others were subjective...

O.

Jakswans is accepting that the first axiom is subjective and yes, someone could disagree with it but if you state that a ball that hits the door is a goal then when it does it follows that on that acceptance it is objectively a goal.

I'm unsure about the overall question of change since an objective morality could notionally be completely based on individual circs so that no general rule could ever be generated.

[Outrider]

Jakswans is accepting that the first axiom is subjective and yes, someone could disagree with it but if you state that a ball that hits the door is a goal then when it does it follows that on that acceptance it is objectively a goal.

If you agree that 'balls that hit the door are goals', it's status as a goal is still dependent upon acceptance of that axiom - therefore it's subjective. It's subjective on that definition, which is itself not objective.

I'm unsure about the overall question of change since an objective morality could notionally be completely based on individual circs so that no general rule could ever be generated.

I'm not sure - I think, in order for it to be objective, it would have to be independent of circumstances, though it could be so collossally complicated and precise as to preclude circumstances. It might cease to be useful at that point, but it would be objective.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

If you agree that 'balls that hit the door are goals', it's status as a goal is still dependent upon acceptance of that axiom - therefore it's subjective. It's subjective on that definition, which is itself not objective.

But once you have aqccepted that then it is objectively true that by that axiom it is a goal for you, it is effectively a perfect syllogism. I agree you have to accept the premise but havibng done that the staus of goal automatically follows. That said I think this is a bit of semantic angels on pins.

I'm not sure - I think, in order for it to be objective, it would have to be independent of circumstances, though it could be so collossally complicated and precise as to preclude circumstances. It might cease to be useful at that point, but it would be objective.

O.

Yes, I would agree with that - it makes it objective in a sense absolutely useless to us since we would be unable to evaluate it.

[ekim]

Perhaps human morality can be seen as both objective and subjective.  The objective is perhaps to create social habits which either conform to the subjective will of the majority or to those holding power in order to maintain cohesion or unity within that society.  It is changeable, as are the laws used to enforce it.

For those who believe in the Biblical God, perhaps there is only one moral and the objective is to be in tune with the will of their God which often comes into conflict with human morality.  I would see the Ten Commandments as an effort to unify the two, where the first 4 are related to the individual and God and the last 6 are related to the individual and society.

[Outrider]

But once you have aqccepted that then it is objectively true that by that axiom it is a goal for you

If it's only a goal for me (or someone else that accepts the axiom), presumably that's not objectively a goal? An equally valid (in that's it's fairly arbitrary) definition of 'goal', accepted by other people, would equally validly be considered a goal, and the two would not necessarily be mutually exclusive (though they could be) but would be subject to which definition you accepted.

If that were 'objective' all morality would be objective, it'd just be based on the acceptance of different axioms, which is pretty much the definition of subjective morality.

O.

[Outrider]

Perhaps human morality can be seen as both objective and subjective.  The objective is perhaps to create social habits which either conform to the subjective will of the majority or to those holding power in order to maintain cohesion or unity within that society.  It is changeable, as are the laws used to enforce it.

Arguably that would make the purpose - or, perhaps, benefit - of having morality objective, but the content would remain subjective. The objective benefit would remain a benefit regardless of whether the actual morality were objective or subjective.

For those who believe in the Biblical God, perhaps there is only one moral and the objective is to be in tune with the will of their God which often comes into conflict with human morality.

It's possible that there are objective moral values AND subjective ones, yes - I personally don't see any case standing up for an objective morality given that we have to understand, and our understanding is inherently subjective - we have no objective understanding of anything, and therefore we can have no objective morality. It's arguable that there might be objective morality and we can't be aware of it - i.e. a morality founded in a god - but we have no way to demonstrate that.

I would see the Ten Commandments as an effort to unify the two, where the first 4 are related to the individual and God and the last 6 are related to the individual and society.

Which ten commandments? The 'ten commandments' are listed differently in three different places in the Bible, and constitute (depending on interpretation) up to twenty-five actual commandments out of hundreds of other pronouncements and behavioural edicts. That said, whether direct instructions constitute 'moral precepts' is another question entirely.

If I follow the ten commandments am I moral because I, say, don't covet my neighbour's ass, am I moral because I follow God's instructions or am I not moral at all because I'm not making moral judgements, I'm just blindly following instructions?

O.

[Andy]

So my position is that I think morality is subjective, moral values are objective.

I think you've got that arse about face. Your moral values are the foundation by which you make moral decisions. If I value human life above all else, then when it comes to a crunch decision where, for example, it's your life or the life of a fly, the fly gets it. That you have both been put in a life threatening situation is at the mercy of reality, but I value you over the fly, so I should save your life if I'm to be consistent and true to my values. But should I value your life over the fly? This is where the is/ought gap actually is.

[jakswan]

If that were 'objective' all morality would be objective, it'd just be based on the acceptance of different axioms, which is pretty much the definition of subjective morality.

No morality is subjective moral values would be objective. I think that would make me a moral realist in some way.

We have already refuted Al's definition of moral values would be true even if no one was left alive.

[Gordon]

It seems to me that moral intuitions can function as generally applicable moral axioms: for instance it seems to me that KALJFF (killing a lion just for fun) is wrong.

It seems to me that moral intuitions are part of our evolutionary history, and that our mental capacities for altruism and abstract thought allows us to ground our intuitions by looking at implications and by considering other views, so that it is the case that moral views on some things involve a strong moral consensus that is axiomatic whereas for others things moral views are less precise or more variable.

What I struggle with, in terms of what DT says, is that having or recognising moral axioms that derive from the combination of intuition, experience and reasoned review somehow points me in the direction of God - this notion seems like a non sequitur.

[Outrider]

It seems to me that moral intuitions can function as generally applicable moral axioms: for instance it seems to me that KALJFF (killing a lion just for fun) is wrong.

Except that different people have different 'moral intuitions'. Sociopaths and psychopaths, in particular, are virtually defined by the stark variations in their 'moral intuitions'. Those moral intuitions are not universal, they are not shared by everyone - as well as individual variation there are large cultural variations.

It seems to me that moral intuitions are part of our evolutionary history, and that our mental capacities for altruism and abstract thought allows us to ground our intuitions by looking at implications and by considering other views, so that it is the case that moral views on some things involve a strong moral consensus that is axiomatic whereas for others things moral views are less precise or more variable.

I'd suggest it's more likely that evolutionary pressures have instilled in us instincts which are beneficial to the reproduction of our genes, and we have rationalised those into 'moral precepts' after the fact. Unless you could demonstrate that the furtherance of our genetic code is morally, rather than practically, beneficial or 'good' that line of thinking goes nowhere.

O.

[Gordon]

It seems to me that moral intuitions can function as generally applicable moral axioms: for instance it seems to me that KALJFF (killing a lion just for fun) is wrong.

Except that different people have different 'moral intuitions'. Sociopaths and psychopaths, in particular, are virtually defined by the stark variations in their 'moral intuitions'. Those moral intuitions are not universal, they are not shared by everyone - as well as individual variation there are large cultural variations.

It seems to me that moral intuitions are part of our evolutionary history, and that our mental capacities for altruism and abstract thought allows us to ground our intuitions by looking at implications and by considering other views, so that it is the case that moral views on some things involve a strong moral consensus that is axiomatic whereas for others things moral views are less precise or more variable.

I'd suggest it's more likely that evolutionary pressures have instilled in us instincts which are beneficial to the reproduction of our genes, and we have rationalised those into 'moral precepts' after the fact. Unless you could demonstrate that the furtherance of our genetic code is morally, rather than practically, beneficial or 'good' that line of thinking goes nowhere.

O.

Not suggesting 'good' at all, O, simply that morality is something that people have the capacity to 'do;, and that while views vary between the extremes of sociopaths to the consensus, and that they may change over time and/or with wider social circumstances, that people think morally doesn't require God.

[Jack Knave]

I can't help it... must resist...

Hehe! I know.

OK - your 'goal' analogy fails: if someone else has a different concept of 'goals' (the ball must pass through the doorway, say) your 'ball touches the door' is not a goal. Both decisions are equally valid, based upon different precepts.

They are playing a different game then and if that is the case I'm taking my ball home!

Hehe...

If they're playing a different game, then your 'goals' and their 'goals' are different - in which case, in the analogy, there are just parallel, equally valid 'moralities'... so they still aren't objective, because everyone has their own.

O.

You haven't understood Jaks position. If a group agrees to a set of morals then within that group it is objective. If another group has some different morals then they are in a different culture. In the football analogy they are playing a different game - hence things like rugby.

This subjective/objective thing is like onion rings. Within a context morals are objective but when you move outside that context to the next level up, or ring, it becomes subjective as that upper ring includes all other possible moral set-ups in the lower ring - if you see what I mean - and so on up. The last most-high and glorious ring has to be subjective as it includes all possible moral positions but has no morals of its own - it is One but numerous.

[Outrider]

You haven't understood Jaks position. If a group agrees to a set of morals then within that group it is objective. If another group has some different morals then they are in a different culture. In the football analogy they are playing a different game - hence things like rugby.

That still doesn't make it objective - it's dependent upon accepting those cultural precepts, which means it's subject to those ideas. Even within that culture, you can see that it's culturally dependent.

O.

[Jack Knave]

Yes, I would agree with that - it makes it objective in a sense absolutely useless to us since we would be unable to evaluate it.

If we did follow this, which as you say we couldn't evaluate it, it would turn us into robots. That's the thing the theists seem to miss that their freewill idea goes up in smoke if they blindly follow their god's laws as their puny little human minds can't possibly understand their God's thinking in this.

[Jack Knave]

You haven't understood Jaks position. If a group agrees to a set of morals then within that group it is objective. If another group has some different morals then they are in a different culture. In the football analogy they are playing a different game - hence things like rugby.

That still doesn't make it objective - it's dependent upon accepting those cultural precepts, which means it's subject to those ideas. Even within that culture, you can see that it's culturally dependent.

O.

But within the context, which I grant you has limits and is bounded, it is objective. It is not ultimately or sublimely objective, kind of Objective, but within the set context it is.

As for dependence then nothing can be objective for everything is subject to some frame work or other.

[Nearly Sane]

If we did follow this, which as you say we couldn't evaluate it, it would turn us into robots. That's the thing the theists seem to miss that their freewill idea goes up in smoke if they blindly follow their god's laws as their puny little human minds can't possibly understand their God's thinking in this.

Yep, Pretty much. I can get their idea that we cannot understand their god but if one needed to be god to know what was moral, then our intuitions are useless

[Andy]

If we did follow this, which as you say we couldn't evaluate it, it would turn us into robots. That's the thing the theists seem to miss that their freewill idea goes up in smoke if they blindly follow their god's laws as their puny little human minds can't possibly understand their God's thinking in this.

It turns god into a robot too. If free will is supposed to be the ability to act at ones own discretion - to have the ability to do right or wrong, then god has no free will because he is constrained by the necessity of his omnibenevolent nature.

[ekim]

O

If I follow the ten commandments am I moral because I, say, don't covet my neighbour's ass, am I moral because I follow God's instructions

According to the society attempting to create and maintain social cohesion .... Yes.

or am I not moral at all because I'm not making moral judgements, I'm just blindly following instructions?

With my definition of morality as 'social habits', blindly following instructions is mission accomplished, until the habit is broken and new instructions are followed.  As far as I can see, morality is relative to the group of humans supporting it and is changeable. Your observation to somebody else "I'd suggest it's more likely that evolutionary pressures have instilled in us instincts which are beneficial to the reproduction of our genes, and we have rationalised those into 'moral precepts' after the fact. Unless you could demonstrate that the furtherance of our genetic code is morally, rather than practically, beneficial or 'good' that line of thinking goes nowhere." pretty much sums up the basis of morality.  If the intention of this thread is to discuss whether there is an absolute morality, then good luck.  A Christian might echo the words of Jesus ... there is only one good and that is God (another absolute) .... be attuned to that and 'morality' is unnecessary.

[Udayana]

Great 

No absolute morality, no objective morality, ffs what are we supposed to do? Think for ourselves?? 

[ekim]

It might help, in the sense that if you don't, someone else will think for you and manipulate you into their moral code.  I suppose at the basis of what 'morality' represents are feelings (rather than thoughts) like love, empathy, harmony and wellbeing, which if they became universalised might dispense with moral codes.

[Jack Knave]

If we did follow this, which as you say we couldn't evaluate it, it would turn us into robots. That's the thing the theists seem to miss that their freewill idea goes up in smoke if they blindly follow their god's laws as their puny little human minds can't possibly understand their God's thinking in this.

It turns god into a robot too. If free will is supposed to be the ability to act at ones own discretion - to have the ability to do right or wrong, then god has no free will because he is constrained by the necessity of his omnibenevolent nature.

Or, if God is suppose to be all things then It is both good and evil and as such has no basis to make an informed choice as every possibility impresses on Its mind.