Objectivism Vs. Subjectivism In Morality

[modest]

Because there's this thing called Subjective Morality that I opened the thread with... They argue everything is subjective in terms of morality, and they're right if Objective Morality can't be proven.

I still don't know what you mean by "totally subjective". Let's try this...

 

Anger is subjective. It is highly influenced by a person's emotional character just like morality. The things, in other words, that make you angry may not make me angry. Do you take from this that it is impossible to recognize anger? Impossible to define it? Impossible to objectively determine the evolutionary need for it?

[cal]

Anger is subjective. It is highly influenced by a person's emotional character just like morality. The things, in other words, that make you angry may not make me angry. Do you take from this that it is impossible to recognize anger? Impossible to define it? Impossible to objectively determine the evolutionary need for it?

This would be a fair comparison, but it's flaw is the very thing I'm talking about- Anger, no matter how subjective it is in social presentation, can still be objectively observed underneath the scientific lens. There are specific nuero-transmitters we know that are directly responsible for the sensation of anger, same as love and happiness and just about any other emotion you can feel. We have it down to a science and can even synthesis chemicals that trigger these emotional responses at will.

 

WHAT CHEMICAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GOOD AND EVIL? There isn't. So yes, in this light, and by yours and my definitions mixed, it is impossible to define Morality. Even if there is an evolutionary need for it, that being simply a system by which to contain the choices our consciousnesses can make, that still doesn't objectively say that an act is intrinsically right or wrong.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible moot point, I'm saying it's impossible given what we've established thus far. I really don't want morality to be totally subjective, I want there to be objective truths within morality, but I can't see any and you guys have presented none. This disheartens me.

 

They both exist depending on your personal groups opinion.

That's cool bro, but I knew they both existed in some form, if not just mindspace, based on the premise that we have specific words for the two fields of thought. I'm not worried on whether or not the concepts exist, I'm worried about which one is correct.

 

View it as a two opposing religions. The existance of both is possible when there are multiple perspectives of how it should be.

But see, this is the heart of the matter, so observe this principle - just because both exist doesn't make them both true.

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong...

 

My question to you are you trying to decide on which view of morality should be chosen? Or are you trying to figure out which is more correct? ... You could always just choose not to vote lol!

Both, as of current, I don't follow either whole-hardheartedly because I am aware of fundamental flaws in Relativism, but am also NOT aware of any real Objectivsm in morality. Choosing not to vote in this scenario isn't an option, I need to know whether or not to murder my neighbors and perform genocide for fun. I mean I guess I could do it without thinking about it, but then I wouldn't be making a moral decision, I'd just BE.

 

Maybe that's the solution, the loophole, the way around both subjectivity and objectivity, is if you do things for no reason whatsoever. Then it's not a moral choice because it's not even a choice, it just is. But I guess that also prescribes against the theory of practicality we were developing in the earlier posts, doesn't it lol? What's "practical" in your life when you rid yourself of purpose? No reason to live brings about no reason behind your actions, doesn't it?

 

GODAMN I AM ON A ROLL. So now I have a new schema, but I'd like my initial one to be answered still lol.

 

Initial - What's objective about morality? What's in the molecules that can be measured as this amount good or this amount evil?

Refined - If there is no objectivity in morality, then does doing actions without reason or purpose mean it is without moral weight? Even if it is murder?

Edited November 21, 2012 by Matthew Garon

[Chewbalka]

I have been starting to wonder what if morality is a genetic decision? Something beyond our ability to change in ones self?

 

Read this it may give you head a spin! It helped me realize why i share sociapath traits with a powerful urge to help. (It actually causes me physical pain if i try to avoid helping someone that i deemed has been done wrong). Sounds ****ed up I know but read it anyway lol

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/31/walking-the-line-between-good-and-evil-the-common-thread-of-heroes-and-villains/

[modest]

This would be a fair comparison, but it's flaw is the very thing I'm talking about- Anger, no matter how subjective it is in social presentation, can still be objectively observed underneath the scientific lens. There are specific nuero-transmitters we know that are directly responsible for the sensation of anger, same as love and happiness and just about any other emotion you can feel. We have it down to a science and can even synthesis chemicals that trigger these emotional responses at will.

Perfect. A biological basis—that's exactly where I was coming from. The foundations of morality (e.g. empathy, altruism, solidarity) can be seen on an fMRI. A brain scan shows them. There are neurotransmitters and hormones that induce moral behavior (oxytocin for example) as well as literature showing that a deficiency of those neurotransmitters and hormones induces psychopathy.

 

Morality is behavioral so of course it has a biological basis.

 

WHAT CHEMICAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GOOD AND EVIL? There isn't. So yes, in this light, and by yours and my definitions mixed, it is impossible to define Morality.

No need to shout. The same chemical cocktail that produces anger in one person may produce agitation alone in another. This doesn't prevent you from defining anger. It's possible to define things without assigning them a chemical makeup.

 

Even if there is an evolutionary need for it, that being simply a system by which to contain the choices our consciousnesses can make, that still doesn't objectively say that an act is intrinsically right or wrong.

My previous example... we teach our kids that the short sleeve shirt is wrong on a cold day. The long sleeve shirt is right. We aren't teaching them morality with that. "Right and wrong" clearly isn't the correct definition of morality.

 

"Right" describes "eight" as the answer of "four plus four". "Right" can also describe a moral action. You can define "math" without proving every right and wrong answer to every (or any particular) math problem just like you can define morality without proving every right and wrong answer to every (or any particular) moral dilemma. It says nothing about the objectivity of math or the objectivity of morality.

 

I really don't want morality to be totally subjective, I want there to be objective truths within morality

We could not have gotten this far as a species without a sense of morality. Intelligent group animals that work together for the common good have it because it is an evolutionary benefit. In that sense, it is something to be discovered, described, and refined, rather than something to be invented.

 

It isn't as if there was once a tribe of humans who had no sense of morality (they didn't think in moral terms) until someone said, "I have an idea. Let's have empathy and compassion motivate prosocial behavior so that we can work well together." Evolution did that long before humanity was a species.

 

That is one objective aspect. A study of history and sociology is another, along with psychology and neuroscience... there are objective aspects so I still, I'm sorry, don't know what you mean "totally subjective".

 

~modest

[cal]

Perfect. A biological basis—that's exactly where I was coming from. The foundations of morality (e.g. empathy, altruism, solidarity) can be seen on an fMRI. A brain scan shows them. There are neurotransmitters and hormones that induce moral behavior (oxytocin for example) as well as literature showing that a deficiency of those neurotransmitters and hormones induces psychopathy.

The fMRI shows parts of the brain active when experiencing certain emotions, not the other way around; an fMRI will not show you that chemicals responsible for emotions objectively deem an act as good or evil, if it did, then me having fun whilst murdering would deem the murder a good one. Oxytocin is the chemical responsible for the sensation of love, feeling strong love during an act does not mean you've chosen to do the right act, it simply means you love whatever it is you're doing. An example of this is synthesized love, which can be triggered with hallucinogens like MDMA. Whether or not there is a lack of, or an over-stimulation of, love or emotions that lead to empathy or the more existential all-around solidarity idea, does not deem the acts that the people do as intrinsically good or evil. The emotions and reasoning behind the doer are not directly the same as the acts themselves, and therefore you cannot derive the intrinsic "good" or "evil" from ones neurotransmitters. The act itself does not have neurotransmitters, modest. You cannot monitor the act's brainwaves, it does not have them. And while you are answering the path I wanted, because I am looking for a physical side to good and evil, I think I have setup a one-sided way to analyze it. So instead consider this- are there Good and Evil molecules? You may argue some chemicals responsible for certain positive or negative emotions are intrinsically Good or Evil chemicals, but it cannot be so do to the fact that there are serial killers (like Ted Bundy) that do not have any form of psychosis, any brain imbalance, and experience normal emotions like the rest of us. To say so is to say that Ted Bundy was just in his killings.

 

Morality is behavioral so of course it has a biological basis.

You're admitting that morality is behavioral here, which is an entirely subjective thing... entirely subjective = totally subjective morality, aka "Subjectivism". Despite your belief that it is not Subjectivism, your arguments are arguing for Subjectivism- the idea that morality is totally subjective. This isn't a bad thing though, and I'm not saying you're wrong in arguing for Subjectivism, I'm just saying that you're wrong in using your schema for Objectivism. Subjectivism (or Relativism, they're pretty similar) in morality might be the correct field of thought, but it appears that both you and me don't want it to be, and yet neither of us can give objective truths for morality thus far. Again, not saying we won't ever, but we just haven't yet.

 

No need to shout. The same chemical cocktail that produces anger in one person may produce agitation alone in another. This doesn't prevent you from defining anger. It's possible to define things without assigning them a chemical makeup.

Sorry lol, I wasn't trying to shout, I just felt like I bolded too many things and I wanted to emphasize the phrase so I didn't know what else to do haha. I totally agree that it's possible to define things without assigning them a chemical makeup, and that's exactly what I think we'll have to do with Objective Morality at this point, however, I'd like to hear how exactly you objectively define morality if you don't use physical phenomena.

 

My previous example... we teach our kids that the short sleeve shirt is wrong on a cold day. The long sleeve shirt is right. We aren't teaching them morality with that. "Right and wrong" clearly isn't the correct definition of morality.

I'll give you this point, if anything I've been using the wrong semantics for how I define what I'm trying to get at here... So, for future reference, if I say "Right and Wrong", I mean to say "Good and Evil", so thanks for clarifying this.

 

On that note though, I'd like to address your example here showing that morality isn't intuited, and that it's a learned trait. There are child prodigies in chess, mathematics, linguistics, but never in morality. Morality is taught, and a way to prove this is by exemplifying the things one culture might say is horrible, and that another culture might say is enjoyed- Slavery. India still practices slavery, their government, economy, and major religion all revolve around slavery, but it's okay because they call it a caste system instead. Plus the slaves are slaves by choice, so that makes it humane, right? So slavery is totally cool in their scenario, right? Or is slavery always intrinsically evil? I'm confused about this one right here, because if there are objective truths in morality, and one of them was that slavery is evil, then why isn't the UN and the world police over there abolishing their oppression? I don't mean this mockingly, but I think it's a serious problem with India if Objectivism is correct and Relativism isn't...

 

We could not have gotten this far as a species without a sense of morality. Intelligent group animals that work together for the common good have it because it is an evolutionary benefit. In that sense, it is something to be discovered, described, and refined, rather than something to be invented.

Again, I'll give you this, as I did the last time you presented this argument (saying that evolutionarily it's beneficial to work together), but there's nothing in our evolution that says working together is objectively good. There's nothing in our evolution that says not working together is evil. What's evil or immoral about not working together and having your species die out? Sure, it means it's not beneficial for the species if survival is what you consider to be beneficial, but if it's not and instead you consider killing for fun to be beneficial, then having your species die out is beneficial.

 

It isn't as if there was once a tribe of humans who had no sense of morality (they didn't think in moral terms) until someone said, "I have an idea. Let's have empathy and compassion motivate prosocial behavior so that we can work well together." Evolution did that long before humanity was a species.

So again, what about having a sense of something means it's the correct sense of it? Most Creationists sense through the Bible that evolution is a lie sent by the devil, so what then does having a sense of the Bible mean if you're using it the incorrect way? Just because we have a sense of morality means absolutely nothing if we're using morality the incorrect way. How can you objectively say that killing for fun is evil? Where is it written in stone that killing for fun is evil? Well, I guess in the Bible it's literally written in stone, saying murder is evil, but outside of the view of God, and outside of natural law, who is to say killing is intrinsically evil? What schema can actuate that argument?

 

That is one objective aspect. A study of history and sociology is another, along with psychology and neuroscience... there are objective aspects so I still, I'm sorry, don't know what you mean "totally subjective".

I mean your whole argument, which I've just spent some time point-for-point refuting. Science is science is science, and philosophy is unto its own study. I don't think the points from the sciences you gave have anything objective to say about morality, and if they did, wouldn't I have a sense that they did? I mean you argue so, but most people would not agree, making your argument null in this case (the case being that there would have to be a unanimous sense of it, which there isn't). So, I dunno man, I'm not buying it. Also, I don't know how I come off in these things cause it's plain text and you can't hear my tone or inflection, but despite popular belief, I'm not being condescending or pretentious lol. I'm not mad or angry at you, I like hearing what you guys have to say, so I, in no way, mean to sound negative lol. I'm writing this in a very good mood so I hope I don't come off as mean or pretentious haha >.>

[modest]

The fMRI shows parts of the brain active when experiencing certain emotions, not the other way around; an fMRI will not show you that chemicals responsible for emotions objectively deem an act as good or evil, if it did, then me having fun whilst murdering would deem the murder a good one... The emotions and reasoning behind the doer are not directly the same as the acts themselves, and therefore you cannot derive the intrinsic "good" or "evil" from ones neurotransmitters... Whether or not there is a lack of, or an over-stimulation of, love or emotions that lead to empathy or the more existential all-around solidarity idea, does not deem the acts that the people do as intrinsically good or evil.

I responded to this in my last post. You don't need to prove that certain acts are good or evil to establish objective qualities of morality. There are many propositions in math that some mathematicians think are correct while others think are wrong. No proofs have been found either way. It doesn't mean that math lacks objective qualities. That argument doesn't work.

 

Oxytocin is the chemical responsible for the sensation of love, feeling strong love during an act does not mean you've chosen to do the right act

Not sure where you're coming from... maybe you heard oxytocin called the "love hormone" and assumed anything that wasn't the sensation of love wasn't related to oxytocin. It's just a nickname. It's also called the "moral molecule". The truth is too complicated for those generalizations.

 

The act itself does not have neurotransmitters, modest. You cannot monitor the act's brainwaves, it does not have them.

If we take the example of empathy—there exits neurocircuitry that only functions when a person imagines the plight of another as if they themselves were in that situation. The golden rule, in other words, is written into our neurocircuitry from birth. If that is not understood as an objective aspect of morality then I don't understand how you're using the terms objective or morality.

 

You're admitting that morality is behavioral here

It's an assertion, not an admission.

 

, which is an entirely subjective thing... entirely subjective = totally subjective morality, aka "Subjectivism".

Behavior doesn't prove subjectivism.

 

Sorry lol, I wasn't trying to shout

It looked like you were angry, but without a brain scan and blood test I guess we established there's no way to be sure :)

 

I totally agree that it's possible to define things without assigning them a chemical makeup, and that's exactly what I think we'll have to do with Objective Morality at this point, however, I'd like to hear how exactly you objectively define morality if you don't use physical phenomena.

In the same post that you ask for the chemical composition of good and evil you recognize that things can be defined without assigning a chemical makeup so it's hard to see where you're coming from.

 

Definitions aren't really objective or subjective. If we define "mammal" one way then certain animals will qualify and if we define it a little differently then different animals will qualify. Definitions are somewhat arbitrary and tautological in that sense. The quality of a good definition is its usefulness. A good definition is useful and a bad definition is not useful. I'm not sure I could "objectively define morality" because I'm not sure what objectively defining something entails, but I can usefully define it. Morality is prosocial behavior motivated by empathy and solidarity.

 

I'll give you this point, if anything I've been using the wrong semantics for how I define what I'm trying to get at here... So, for future reference, if I say "Right and Wrong", I mean to say "Good and Evil", so thanks for clarifying this.

The problem is that you implicitly define morality as "good and evil". I've frequently seen that as a source of many problems on this topic. Good and evil are qualities of moral actions, but they don't define it. For example, trees could be tall or short. Tall and short are qualities of trees. Some people might say that a certain tree is tall and other people might say it is short, but that doesn't mean that trees are entirely subjective concepts because "tall and short" isn't the full definition of a tree.

 

On that note though, I'd like to address your example here showing that morality isn't intuited, and that it's a learned trait. There are child prodigies in chess, mathematics, linguistics, but never in morality. Morality is taught, and a way to prove this is by exemplifying the things one culture might say is horrible, and that another culture might say is enjoyed- Slavery. India still practices slavery, their government, economy, and major religion all revolve around slavery, but it's okay because they call it a caste system instead. Plus the slaves are slaves by choice, so that makes it humane, right? So slavery is totally cool in their scenario, right? Or is slavery always intrinsically evil? I'm confused about this one right here, because if there are objective truths in morality, and one of them was that slavery is evil, then why isn't the UN and the world police over there abolishing their oppression? I don't mean this mockingly, but I think it's a serious problem with India if Objectivism is correct and Relativism isn't...

Being cruel to another person is objectively immoral under pretty much any useful definition of the word. People are very capable of convincing themselves that slavery is not inherently cruel even if they should know better, and that has frequently been the moral cover. In other words, "be good to your slaves" is the diluted moral precept that fails to acknowledge the factual point that treating a slave well amounts to freeing the slave. Bondage is its own form of cruelty. It's a point of fact that people fail to get.

 

but there's nothing in our evolution that says working together is objectively good. There's nothing in our evolution that says not working together is evil. What's evil or immoral about not working together and having your species die out? Sure, it means it's not beneficial for the species if survival is what you consider to be beneficial, but if it's not and instead you consider killing for fun to be beneficial, then having your species die out is beneficial.

Again, you're implicitly defining morality as "good and evil".

 

So again, what about having a sense of something means it's the correct sense of it?... Where is it written in stone that killing for fun is evil?

"Correct" is a funny word for it. Morality is a fact of nature. Green is the correct color for the leaf of a tree the same way that morality is correct for humanity. It is an objective quality of humanity, but it sounds like you want it to be something more than that.

 

I mean you argue so, but most people would not agree, making your argument null in this case (the case being that there would have to be a unanimous sense of it, which there isn't).

Argumentum ad populum? ;)

 

Also, I don't know how I come off in these things cause it's plain text and you can't hear my tone or inflection, but despite popular belief, I'm not being condescending or pretentious lol.

You come off very well. I, on the other hand, am genuinely condescending and pretentious. I was just speaking latin for crying out loud :lol:

 

~modest

[cal]

I responded to this in my last post. You don't need to prove that certain acts are good or evil to establish objective qualities of morality. There are many propositions in math that some mathematicians think are correct while others think are wrong. No proofs have been found either way. It doesn't mean that math lacks objective qualities. That argument doesn't work.

Sure, but it also doesn't mean that you can use those propositions as examples of objectivity, which is what I was getting at.

 

Not sure where you're coming from... maybe you heard oxytocin called the "love hormone" and assumed anything that wasn't the sensation of love wasn't related to oxytocin. It's just a nickname. It's also called the "moral molecule". The truth is too complicated for those generalizations.

I should have said it was one* of the chemicals responsible for the sensation of love, I didn't mean to pin it as the sole chemical responsible for love, or any of the other things it does. Was just an example...

 

If we take the example of empathy—there exits neurocircuitry that only functions when a person imagines the plight of another as if they themselves were in that situation. The golden rule, in other words, is written into our neurocircuitry from birth.

That's a super cool story and all, but imagining yourself getting stabbed doesn't do it as far as making morality objective. I mean yea, if you weigh out consequences of your actions, chances are that you've thought out those actions and have a better conclusion from it, HOWEVER, that doesn't make the action hold any moral weight.

 

If that is not understood as an objective aspect of morality then I don't understand how you're using the terms objective or morality.

Then let me tell you: Objective Morality - The concept that there are objective universal moral principles, valid for all people and all social environments.

I would extend that to logical schema and the proofs used to actuate them as well (the logical schema used to set up the moral principles, that is).

 

It's an assertion, not an admission.

Then it doesn't really hold any objectivity, does it?

 

Behavior doesn't prove subjectivism.

No, but it disproves objectivism. Behavior is evolutionary or socially attributed, there isn't anything about a human's behavior that can be generalized and then argued that the behavior is moral or immoral based on its generalization. To do so is a logical fallacy.

 

It looked like you were angry, but without a brain scan and blood test I guess we established there's no way to be sure :)

haha, I actually have to argue that you're right in order to prove my point, so yes I suppose you would need hard evidence to prove that lol. gj mate.

 

In the same post that you ask for the chemical composition of good and evil you recognize that things can be defined without assigning a chemical makeup so it's hard to see where you're coming from.

Yes, I was creating literary contrast, forgive me for taking such license. I brought up the chemical make of good & evil because you suggested there was such a thing. Then when we established there wasn't, I had to allow the existence of a definition beyond chemical makeup, otherwise Objective Morality wouldn't exist. Or anything else that wasn't chemicals for that matter.

 

Definitions aren't really objective or subjective. If we define "mammal" one way then certain animals will qualify and if we define it a little differently then different animals will qualify. Definitions are somewhat arbitrary and tautological in that sense. The quality of a good definition is its usefulness. A good definition is useful and a bad definition is not useful. I'm not sure I could "objectively define morality" because I'm not sure what objectively defining something entails, but I can usefully define it. Morality is prosocial behavior motivated by empathy and solidarity.

[Forgive me for altering the quote, that sentence was underlined with purpose though.]

That sounds more like the definition for the Ethics of Care (a feminist-invented ethic system btw; the more you know...), rather than morality at large. And since we aren't discussing the Ethics of Care, that definition isn't all that useful, which is why I think we are at odds with each other. Referring back to the definition of Objective Morality I gave, "that there are objective universal moral principles, valid for all people and all social environments," I think we've been arguing two very different systems haha. I believe this to be the source of our contention. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

The problem is that you implicitly define morality as "good and evil".

Words? In my mouth? It may be more common than you think!

Where do I implicitly define morality as "good and evil"? I've simply used good and evil as the basis for quantitative moral judgment of actions that I've exemplified in my arguments. I, in no way, think or support the idea that the whole of the construct of morality is limited to just "good and evil". If I have said that somewhere and do not remember it, disregard it, because it is not a valid statement.

 

I've frequently seen that as a source of many problems on this topic. Good and evil are qualities of moral actions, but they don't define it. For example, trees could be tall or short. Tall and short are qualities of trees. Some people might say that a certain tree is tall and other people might say it is short, but that doesn't mean that trees are entirely subjective concepts because "tall and short" isn't the full definition of a tree.

I like this argument, but don't confuse what I'm saying. I'm not submitting that just because parts of what we've discussed are subjective, that it makes all of morality subjective, I'm merely asking that if there are objective parts to it, that they be shown to me, just like the DNA of the tree cells that biologically define the organism as a "tree", I need to see the genetic code of morality and apply that to action so I can define an act objectively as a moral one.

 

Being cruel to another person is objectively immoral under pretty much any useful definition of the word. People are very capable of convincing themselves that slavery is not inherently cruel even if they should know better, and that has frequently been the moral cover. In other words, "be good to your slaves" is the diluted moral precept that fails to acknowledge the factual point that treating a slave well amounts to freeing the slave. Bondage is its own form of cruelty. It's a point of fact that people fail to get.

I agree with this, and I actually agree with almost everything you've said in this entire thread (in regards to the implementation of morality, not necessarily the semantics of our definitions), but I'm playing devil's advocate. On top of playing devil's advocate, I have to admit that I agree with you on a non-factual, subjective basis, which is the source of my advocacy. While I think that slavery is wrong, I cannot prove it. And although you say it is "objectively immoral under pretty much any useful definition of the word", that does not mean what you say is true unless you give some useful definition of the word that can be shown as objective truth. Now that doesn't mean you can't do that, but it's what I've been waiting for, and you haven't given it yet.

 

Again, you're implicitly defining morality as "good and evil".

Am not, and unless you find a quote where I am, and not just a specific action, then I do not accept this assertion.

 

"Correct" is a funny word for it. Morality is a fact of nature. Green is the correct color for the leaf of a tree the same way that morality is correct for humanity. It is an objective quality of humanity, but it sounds like you want it to be something more than that.

You solve your own point of contention here and I don't think you saw it when you wrote it. You say morality is a quality of humanity objectively, as if it is there inherently, and then say that I am asking for more. I am. If it is simply a part of humanity, and humanity alone, then whether or not it is objectively in humanity matters not to whether morality is intrinsically a part of the universe, and has objective truths within it outside of our conscious equivocation of it. But you said it is indirectly, quoth, "Morality is a fact of nature." This implies that morality is like mathematical logic, and would exist and actuate truths due to it's existence whether or not there was a consciousness to experience it's actuation. Two plus two will always equal four. There doesn't need to be a living consciousness to dictate that, it is simply true. Always. You are implying the same thing with morality, that morality exists and that there are objective truths within it that would be there without a conscious mind to realize them, and this is exactly what I want. The problem is, that if it truly exists, as it does with math logic, then there should be a logical proof you can give to actuate it. And so far I have not heard one, and none have been presented. So I am left to think that maybe morality is not inherently a part of the universe, and that it is simply a construct of the human consciousness used to keep us in line, and that because of this, Subjective Morality is correct, and Objective Morality is just a pipe dream.

 

Argumentum ad populum? ;)

I was just re-iterating what you said, and then showing that it was a point of subjectivity. If the example is an argumentum ad populum, then it is your own fallacy, not mine, for using that example in the first place.

 

You come off very well. I, on the other hand, am genuinely condescending and pretentious.

Not very noble for someone who names themselves Modest lol.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Matthew Garon

[lawcat]

Morality imo seeks to provide answers about security and comfort of a man, or people--whether something advances the interest of security or comfort. To the extent that each of us has an opinion or a feeling on what that is, morality is subjective. To the extent that we poll opinions on those subjects, morality is objective. (That which advances it being good, and that which does not being bad.)

Edited November 21, 2012 by lawcat

[modest]

Morality imo seeks to provide answers about security and comfort of a man, or people--whether something advances the interest of security or comfort. To the extent that each of us has an opinion or a feeling on what that is, morality is subjective.

There is either something particular to morality that makes this a reasonable statement, or something about it doesn't make sense. Because, I can say the same thing in terms of physics, "Physics seeks to provide answers about modeling and predicting of the natural or physical world--whether something advances the interest of modeling it. To the extent that each of us has an opinion or a feeling on what that is, physics is subjective."

 

I would reject the notion that physics is subjective even to the extent that different people have different opinions about what constitutes physics, and I don't understand why morality should be different as far as that argument goes.

 

~modest

[modest]

Where do I implicitly define morality as "good and evil"?...

 

Then let me tell you: Objective Morality - The concept that there are objective universal moral principles, valid for all people and all social environments.

When I say that you are implicitly defining morality as good and evil I mean that you're defining it like you just defined it. You are defining it in terms of the validity of its principles. Is murder for fun morally good or morally bad? You keep asking... as if to say that morality is subjective unless certain moral principles can be proven true or valid or correct. This is categorically mistaken, but first I should say something abut the difference between universal and objective because you introduced the term universal into your definition and elsewhere in your post for the first time.

 

Newtonian mechanics works in certain situations, but it doesn't work in others. You can use Newtonian mechanics to land a probe on mars, but you can't use it to predict the perihelion precession of mercury. It gives the wrong answer in that situation. In other words, it isn't universal. It has a limited domain of validity. Despite the fact that Newtonian mechanics is not universal, it is nonetheless 100% objective. This should be enough to show that objectivity doesn't imply universality.

 

The problem with defining objective morality the way you've just defined it... let me think of how to best put this...

 

We can agree, I hope, that geometry is objective. Imagine if I defined "objective geometry" the way you just defined "objective morality"...

 

Objective Geometry - The concept that there are objective universal geometric principles, valid for all situations and all environments.

 

So, consider a principle of geometry. Euclid's fifth postulate says that parallel lines don't intersect. Is it true or false? Well, it's true in Euclidean geometry, but it is false in non-Euclidean geometry. So... which geometry is true? Which is correct? The famous quote says,

 

One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient. Geometry is not true, it is advantageous.

 

R. Pirsing

 

Do you see what I mean? By your reasoning geometry fails to be objective. This is what happens when you define something in terms of the validity of its principles.

 

A system of morality can be like a system of geometry... it can be convenient, advantageous, useful, and objective, even if "correct" and "valid" and "true" they are not.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

I would reject the notion that physics is subjective even to the extent that different people have different opinions about what constitutes physics

 

If we talk about mere definition of physics, which you are refering to above, then I certainly think that the definition can be objective and subjective. But what is that?

We say that an objective or subjective definition as claimed is not valid because it is not capable of objective, independent, logical, empirical proof. In this sense, objective/subjective classification is meaningless because the inquiry is whether the claim is valid or invalid.

But then, once a definition is determined valid, then the question is whether it is true--whether it is consistent with evidence. Then we can classify something as true or untrue, rather than objective/subjective.

 

Objetive/Subjective does not tell us anything more than whether something is an opinion of one man or a group. All that matters is whether something is valid and true.

 

 

and I don't understand why morality should be different as far as that argument goes.

 

Same goes for morality. the definition must be valid and proven true by examining whether it is consistent with evidence.

 

Now, the diference between physics and morality, is that for physics we need not poll people, and for morality we do, to find out whether the definition is consistent with evidence. What do people think? Those are the facts of morality. And since we are polling people, opinion of a man matters, thus the classification objective/subjective matters, it's got weight,each man is equaly important, as long as the process is valid.

Edited November 24, 2012 by lawcat

[modest]

But then, once a definition is determined valid, then the question is whether it is true--whether it is consistent with evidence...

 

Same goes for morality. the definition must be valid and proven true by examining whether it is consistent with evidence.

I'm quite certain that doesn't work.

 

Sticking with with physics for a second... the idea of defining physics would be called the "demarcation problem". There are many logically consistent answers to the demarcation problem, but none of them could be considered "true". In other words, you can define "physics" more than one internally consistent way, while none of the definitions are any more true than another.

 

The clearest and best known example would be the inductive method versus the hypothetico-deductive method. String theory would be a good theory of physics under the first method of demarcation, but it would not yet be considered a working theory under the second method. We could argue about which method is more useful or advantageous to human advancement, but they are in essence definitions, and definitions are neither true nor false.

 

I gave the example of "mammal" earlier in the thread. How could you prove true the definition of the word "mammal"?

 

I honestly don't know what you mean when you say you can do that.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Modest, I agree, I made a mistake. I was talking about the "demarcation" in the first paragraph and then I made a leap to somenthing else in the second paragraph.

 

But I still maintain, for morality polling is the legitimate process. And for "demaracation" of physics, the same thing should apply, maybe only physicists should be polled. It's one process we can rely on, and in absence of a more valid process, polling should be relied on.

Edited November 25, 2012 by lawcat

[modest]

Modest, I agree, I made a mistake. I was talking about the "demarcation" in the first paragraph and then I made a leap to somenthing else in the second paragraph.

 

But I still maintain, for morality polling is the legitimate process. And for "demaracation" of physics, the same thing should apply, maybe only physicists should be polled. It's one process we can rely on, and in absence of a more valid process, polling should be relied on.

I see where you're coming from. To be perfectly honest, I'm sort of looking for a way around it.

 

I don't like the idea that you could poll a culture (Somalia would be a fine example) where far more than half of the respondents would say that the subjugation of women, the murder of apostates, and other things like that are not just moral, but moral necessities. I would rather there be some objective way for the minority of that culture to demonstrate just how wrong the majority is.

 

I generally don't think the problem is that people in different cultures define morality all that differently. You defined it as a means to security and comfort, and I defined it in terms of empathy and solidarity encouraging prosocial behavior. A Faqih in Somalia probably wouldn't argue to any great extent with either of those definitions of morality. I strongly suspect they would argue that murdering apostates and subjugating women is prosocial behavior and is a means of providing security and comfort for their culture and as such they are moral behavior.

 

Against that reasoning an objective argument can be made even if moral precepts like those are held by the vast majority of a culture. An objective study of sociology or anthropology would definitely show that treating women like property and killing people who question the majority are sure ways of degrading a culture to the point of insecurity and social unrest.

 

In that sense I think there is an objective way to consider these acts immoral even if the majority of the people doing them would consider them moral.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Very good Modest! So we both agree that a definition along those lines could force reasoning, and we could independently judge whether the result is valid and true. But you are more sceptical than I am of whether the result would be just; or, you are more reserved than I am about trusting the reasoning power of some. So you maybe unwilling to put the power of judgment in people's hands. That is a fundamental disagrement, and I have to disagree with the scepticism.

 

For one, someone has to decide, and then the question becomes who and how. It's always people, but which people? The answer is those who have a vested interest: stake, salience, immediacy, self efficacy, certainty.

Edited November 26, 2012 by lawcat

[cal]

Newtonian mechanics works in certain situations, but it doesn't work in others. You can use Newtonian mechanics to land a probe on mars, but you can't use it to predict the perihelion precession of mercury. It gives the wrong answer in that situation. In other words, it isn't universal. It has a limited domain of validity. Despite the fact that Newtonian mechanics is not universal, it is nonetheless 100% objective. This should be enough to show that objectivity doesn't imply universality.

If I did, then let me undo it. I don't mean to say that objectivity implies universality always, but it does in Objective Morality. In order for Objective Morality to be true, there has to be universally applicable principals in which morality is objectively, and provably true.

 

We can agree, I hope, that geometry is objective. Imagine if I defined "objective geometry" the way you just defined "objective morality"...

Objective Geometry - The concept that there are objective universal geometric principles, valid for all situations and all environments.

So, consider a principle of geometry. Euclid's fifth postulate says that parallel lines don't intersect. Is it true or false? Well, it's true in Euclidean geometry, but it is false in non-Euclidean geometry. So... which geometry is true? Which is correct? The famous quote says,

One geometry cannot be more true than another; it can only be more convenient. Geometry is not true, it is advantageous.

R. Pirsing

Do you see what I mean? By your reasoning geometry fails to be objective. This is what happens when you define something in terms of the validity of its principles.

We do agree, but my reasoning does not fail. The problem with your argument here is that Euclidean geometry does not exclude other logics of geometry. Objective Morality, however, does exclude Relativism/Subjective Morality as possible logics. You cannot have both be true, as I said earlier, they contradict and eradicate themselves on the most fundamental levels of the definition of overall "Morality".

 

A system of morality can be like a system of geometry... it can be convenient, advantageous, useful, and objective, even if "correct" and "valid" and "true" they are not.

You can objectively define morality, but that isn't what I'm looking for in this thread bro... I'm looking for the "correct", "valid", and "true" things in ethics, ergo "Objective Morality". Why are you resisting that question lol? I just want to know why Objective Morality is possible, and in order to prove that Objective Morality really exists, you need the correct, valid, and true examples like you have in geometry.

 

I don't like the idea that you could poll a culture (Somalia would be a fine example) where far more than half of the respondents would say that the subjugation of women, the murder of apostates, and other things like that are not just moral, but moral necessities. I would rather there be some objective way for the minority of that culture to demonstrate just how wrong the majority is.

EXACTLY!! ****IN' EXACTLY BRO. lul. How can you deny my want for "some objective way for the minority of that culture to demonstrate just how wrong the majority is" but then say you want it yourself? I'm just looking for the objectives in morality, and you're arguing there is none! See, now you're just being difficult. =P

 

I generally don't think the problem is that people in different cultures define morality all that differently. You defined it as a means to security and comfort, and I defined it in terms of empathy and solidarity encouraging prosocial behavior. A Faqih in Somalia probably wouldn't argue to any great extent with either of those definitions of morality. I strongly suspect they would argue that murdering apostates and subjugating women is prosocial behavior and is a means of providing security and comfort for their culture and as such they are moral behavior.

Again, your definition of morality isn't the accepted one by philosophers; your definition is for The Ethics of Care, which is a subset of ethics, just as Objective Morality is a subset of ethics. But that aside, you are giving basically the exact same argument I was giving, that Ted Bundy would say murdering for fun is pro-social behavior and is a means of providing comfort. Why are we at odds unless you can find the correct, valid, and true objectives that disprove this? It seems that the contention of mine and yours is the same, in that we both see the problem (the moral problems), and we both know it is wrong/evil to cause that given problem, but we can't find an objectivity within the act itself that defines that act as "evil" or "immoral". You argued that if it makes the species die off, or degrades the civility of the culture, that it is a wrong action, but that's almost a biological definition of what's good or bad for a species. Your argument doesn't cover the act itself, on an individual scale, which is what's needed to prove Objective Morality.

 

Against that reasoning an objective argument can be made even if moral precepts like those are held by the vast majority of a culture. An objective study of sociology or anthropology would definitely show that treating women like property and killing people who question the majority are sure ways of degrading a culture to the point of insecurity and social unrest.

 

In that sense I think there is an objective way to consider these acts immoral even if the majority of the people doing them would consider them moral.

Unfortunately, sociology and anthropology, no matter what statistics they give, are not a means by which to define the morality of actions. They simply define the actions' sociological and anthropological outcomes, nothing more.

 

But I still maintain, for morality polling is the legitimate process. And for "demaracation" of physics, the same thing should apply, maybe only physicists should be polled. It's one process we can rely on, and in absence of a more valid process, polling should be relied on.

Publicity is one of the four tenants of ethics. So yes, taking consensus and then validation, on top of making the consensus results and what the ultimatum of the validation presumes public, are required for an ethical theory or ethical proof, to be legitimate and actuated.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Matthew Garon

[modest]

If I did, then let me undo it. I don't mean to say that objectivity implies universality always, but it does in Objective Morality. In order for Objective Morality to be true, there has to be universally applicable principals in which morality is objectively, and provably true.

 

 

We do agree, but my reasoning does not fail. The problem with your argument here is that Euclidean geometry does not exclude other logics of geometry. Objective Morality, however, does exclude Relativism/Subjective Morality as possible logics. You cannot have both be true, as I said earlier, they contradict and eradicate themselves on the most fundamental levels of the definition of overall "Morality".

 

 

You can objectively define morality, but that isn't what I'm looking for in this thread bro... I'm looking for the "correct", "valid", and "true" things in ethics, ergo "Objective Morality". Why are you resisting that question lol? I just want to know why Objective Morality is possible, and in order to prove that Objective Morality really exists, you need the correct, valid, and true examples like you have in geometry.

 

 

EXACTLY!! ****IN' EXACTLY BRO. lul. How can you deny my want for "some objective way for the minority of that culture to demonstrate just how wrong the majority is" but then say you want it yourself? I'm just looking for the objectives in morality, and you're arguing there is none! See, now you're just being difficult. =P

 

 

Again, your definition of morality isn't the accepted one by philosophers; your definition is for The Ethics of Care, which is a subset of ethics, just as Objective Morality is a subset of ethics. But that aside, you are giving basically the exact same argument I was giving, that Ted Bundy would say murdering for fun is pro-social behavior and is a means of providing comfort. Why are we at odds unless you can find the correct, valid, and true objectives that disprove this? It seems that the contention of mine and yours is the same, in that we both see the problem (the moral problems), and we both know it is wrong/evil to cause that given problem, but we can't find an objectivity within the act itself that defines that act as "evil" or "immoral". You argued that if it makes the species die off, or degrades the civility of the culture, that it is a wrong action, but that's almost a biological definition of what's good or bad for a species. Your argument doesn't cover the act itself, on an individual scale, which is what's needed to prove Objective Morality.

 

 

Unfortunately, sociology and anthropology, no matter what statistics they give, are not a means by which to define the morality of actions. They simply define the actions' sociological and anthropological outcomes, nothing more.

 

 

Publicity is one of the four tenants of ethics. So yes, taking consensus and then validation, on top of making the consensus results and what the ultimatum of the validation presumes public, are required for an ethical theory or ethical proof, to be legitimate and actuated.

Matthew, there's a lot you're not getting from what I'm saying, and a lot of that is probably my fault for failing to articulate it.

 

Geometry is the perfect analogy for morality, so I'm going to break this down and drive it home as much as I can then explain why it matters.

 

Euclid wants to make a geometry around 300 BC and Immanuel Kant wants to make a morality some time in the mid 1700's. The first unavoidable step is that "geometry" and "morality" have to be defined.

 

The first step:

• Euclid defines his geometry through the use of 5 postulates.
  
• Kant defines his morality through the use of something he called a categorical imperative
  

 

The second step:

• Euclid deductively constructs a geometric system that logically follow from his 5 postulates.
  
• Kant deductively constructs a moral system that logically follow his 'categorical imperative'.
  

 

The third step:

• Euclid's geometry works in so far as it can be used to give the geometric volume of a sphere or something like that.
  
• Kant's morality works in so far as it can be used to give the moral virtue of an act or something like that.
  

 

The problem I see is that you're starting on this third and final step and saying that we must prove that the act is truly morally virtuous in order for morality to be objective. You said as much in your last post, so let me quote it...

 

I'm looking for the "correct", "valid", and "true" things in ethics, ergo "Objective Morality".

 

The truth or correctness of the formula for the volume of a sphere isn't what makes a geometry objective, and the truth or correctness of a moral virtue isn't what makes morality objective. What makes them objective is that we can move from the first step to the third step using deduction and logic without personal and emotional bias.

 

There are non-Euclidean geometries in which 4/3pir^3 is the wrong formula for the volume of a sphere, and there are non-Kantian moralities in which fulfilling one's cultural duty is the wrong formula for achieving moral conduct. The problem goes back to the postulates of the geometric and the moral systems. There are other postulates from which perfectly consistent, perfectly logical, and perfectly objective geometries and moral philosophies can be derived.

 

As such it is a mistake to think that any geometry or any moral philosophy is "true" or "correct". They can't be described in those terms. But, it is equally mistaken to think they lack objectivity because they can't be described in those terms.

 

 

What I told Lawcat is that most people generally do agree on the definition of morality. Once that agreement is made it is easy to objectively show someone that they've made some deductive logical mistake about what is moral and what isn't moral (under that definition).

 

As far as my definition resembling some kind of ethics of care—I don't know to what you're referring and I wouldn't mind if it resembled it. Good for them coming up with something similar.

 

~modest