Objective Morality.

[Excon]

I believe Morality is Objective.

You do?
Do you see what you said which I underlined?
That makes it subjective.

This is pretty simple.

There are actions and inactions. And interpretations of them.
All interpretations are subjective.

As such, outside of any interpretive framework, the actions are just actions, there is no right/wrong, good/evil.
That is the base.
So all interpretations are subjective.

Only within an artificially created interpretive framework can those interpretations be objective.
Such interpretive framework would be your personal beliefs (morals, ethics, values), or socially created Laws.
Only within a framework of belief or law, can it be determined to be objective by those created standards.
Which does not change the fact that at it's the base, all interpretations are subjective.

 

[sangha]

But that's not a problem unique to moral realism. Moral realism (objective morality) doesn't require that moral truths be derivable. Neither does subjectivism for that matter.

The terms 'objective' and 'subjective' are often misused in discussions of metaethics. In the context of metaethical philosophy those two terms have very specific meanings. Moral realism (what laymen refer to as 'objective morality') holds that

1) Moral statements are truth apt
2) Some moral statements are true
3) The truth or falsity of these statements is attitude-independent.

Subjectivist anti-realism holds that

1) Moral statements are truth apt
2) Some moral statements are true
3) The truth of falsity of these statements is attitude-dependent

Moral Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I didn't read the whole thing, but it does seem to make my point

Still, much of the debate about moral realism revolves around either what it takes for claims to be true or false at all (with some arguing that moral claims do not have what it takes) or what it would take specifically for moral claims to be true (with some arguing that moral claims would require something the world does not provide).

However, it's possible that it's making the argument only to shoot it down later in the piece

 

[sangha]

If things are different for different groups, they're not objective.

That's not actually true.

If there's a cat, and one person says it's blue, another says it's red, another says it's black, etc...It's possible that one person is correctly reporting its' color. IOW, the fact is that there is an objective truth concerning the cats' color even if some people are not seeing that truth.

For me, the issue here is that morality is not something that can be shown to have an objective truth

 

[Fearandloathing]

When the whole thread just boils down to people arguing their opinions without any proof of anything, that's the definition of subjective. I mean, maybe morality is objective, but no one in this thread has proven it and to my knowledge no one in the history of mankind has...or even knows how to.

What he said.

 

[Cephus]

No what I said makes perfect sense.

Not if you expect people to take you seriously. What you're doing is called "bait and switch".

 

[grip]

Rogue Wink* Wink* :lol:
I believe Morality is Objective.

Many poster ask for proof of this. Typically these discussions start with a bait and switch.
Subjective Moralist will say - "Ok, you believe morality is objective? So is stealing wrong?"
The objective Moralist will say - "yes"
And then the SM will say - "What about a starving men and the brink of death standing before an unattended fruit stand?"
And then they segue into a discussion on how this proves subjective morality.

I don't believe this proves subjective morality, what I believe is it demonstrates a false set up for what morality encompasses. The notion that objective morality is absolute on any given action is false, Objective morality is nuanced and varies objectively not upon actions but upon circumstances.

So, no, Stealing is not Absolutely morally wrong, when dissected though, there are circumstances where stealing is absolutely, from an intellectually honest stand point, always wrong and always ok. The details matter.

For instance - I am a well to do man. I can afford a home, clothes, and food and currently possess a surplus of all of those things. If I come across a homeless man who has fallen asleep with a big mac in his lap and I take it. I believe there is never any rational explanation for why that action would possibly be morally permissible. So anyone who within that same context repeated my action will always be morally wrong.

However - If I am a starving homeless man and I have a starving daughter and a visibly wealthy individual has left his van open with groceries unattended and I choose to take their peanut butter, loaf of bread, and gallon of water. I have acted morally right, for the benefit of my own life, which I believe should be fought for at all cost, and that of my child. I believe in this context, objectively, anyone repeating this action is in the right.

Another example.

I am in the kitchen with a stranger who is unarmed, friendly, harmless, and otherwise simply not a threat. Suddenly I pick up a knife and kill the stranger for no reason other than joy. In this scenario, objectively, I am always morally wrong. I, again, do not believe there is any intellectually honest way to rationalize my actions in that context.

Now - The stranger is pointing a gun at me. And I manage to kill them with knife, don't ask how. I have again murdered the stranger, however, objectively, I have acted in a morally right way. I protected my life and didn't simply die. I had a right to do so and it was rational. This, I believe, is objectively morally right.

IN nutshell objective morality is based off of action and consequence and both of those are consistent in reality. It is not simply based of off broad definitions in which any involvement of that action is always wrong or always right.

Now a counter argument may be, well someone out there may not find killing someone for no reason wrong. I don't believe that is relevant though. If we approach this with logic and rational in mind, regardless of what in psycho may believe - we can assess the action and the consequence and come to a consistent consensus. Ruthless unprovoked killing can not be defended in an intellectual discussion it is always wrong, it is only when we tweak the circumstances do things change and they change objectively.

so am I wrong or am I right?

The only thing that applies to nature that doesn't seem to be subjective is "survival of the fittest". All other ideas are social constructs, though even other species have rules of herd mentality, they are not universally objective.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

That's not actually true.

If there's a cat, and one person says it's blue, another says it's red, another says it's black, etc...It's possible that one person is correctly reporting its' color. IOW, the fact is that there is an objective truth concerning the cats' color even if some people are not seeing that truth.

For me, the issue here is that morality is not something that can be shown to have an objective truth

A cat can be a different color depending on if you're color blind, if you're a butterfly, whatever.

 

[Excon]

A cat can be a different color depending on if you're color blind, if you're a butterfly, whatever.

The cat isn't a different color, as it's color remains the same.
The perception of the individual isn't the norm. That is what is different.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

The cat isn't a different color, as it's color remains the same.
The perception of the individual isn't the norm. That is what is different.

Well a color itself only manifests itself, literally, in the eye of the beholder. Or optical nerves of the beholder. The same exact thing will appear different colors to different people.

The point being that even color is subjective; of course morals are.

 

[Excon]

Well a color itself only manifests itself, literally, in the eye of the beholder. Or optical nerves of the beholder. The same exact thing will appear different colors to different people.

The point being that even color is subjective; of course morals are.

Color is not subjective as it can be scientifically measured.
The eye of the beholder is what is subjective here.
Outside of the norm, such as in color blindness, the cat would not appear to be the color it is.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Color is not subjective as it can be scientifically measured.
The eye of the beholder is what is subjective here.
Outside of the norm, such as in color blindness, the cat would not appear to be the color it is.

Then what's "right": what the average human sees, or what the average butterfly sees? Or are they both?

 

[sangha]

A cat can be a different color depending on if you're color blind, if you're a butterfly, whatever.

You know, i was thinking about that very same point while writing it but thinking "He's not going to go there!"

Damn you!!

However, color blindless is, if I understand it correctly, a problem with a persons ability to discern color based on some abnormality in the eye's receptors. Regardless of what any individual perceives, the cats fur does reflect light of certain frequencies. IOW, there is some sort of objective truth about what we call color.

And that is true even if everyone in the room is color blind. The fact that none of the people can accurately discern the objective truth about how light interacts with the cats' fur, that doesn't mean that there isn't an objective truth about that. Even if we were blind, there are instruments that could be used to measure that light, and discern that objective truth

So, to get the matter back on track, what are the "instruments" we can use to determine the objective truth of morality? Of course, if we lack those instruments, that doesn't mean that there is no objective morality. However, without those instruments, we can't say that there is an objective morality

 

[Cephus]

Well a color itself only manifests itself, literally, in the eye of the beholder. Or optical nerves of the beholder. The same exact thing will appear different colors to different people.

The point being that even color is subjective; of course morals are.

Wrong. If someone cannot see the color as it actually is, it's not the fault of the color, it's the fault of the observer. The colors don't change based on the observer's biology, the colors are constant, the people who see it incorrectly are wrong.

But of course, someone's miswired eyes have nothing to do with morals.

 

[Cephus]

Then what's "right": what the average human sees, or what the average butterfly sees? Or are they both?

What actually is, what can actually be objectively measured via scientific instruments.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

What actually is, what can actually be objectively measured via scientific instruments.

So which is right: what a butterfly sees or what a human sees?

 

[Cephus]

So which is right: what a butterfly sees or what a human sees?

Depends on if they see what's actually true. The only thing that matters is the reality.

 

[the_recruit]

I didn't read the whole thing, but it does seem to make my point

That excerpt isn't an argument so I'm not sure why you think it demonstrates your point. That excerpt highlights the major areas of contention in the meta-ethical debate.

Moral realists and subjectivist anti-realists actually both agree that "moral claims have what it takes to be true or false, aka truth aptness" (as opposed to noncognitivists who argue that moral claims are not truth apt. For example an nocognitivist might argue that saying "X is wrong" is just another way of saying "I don't like X" in the same way you might say "That car is ugly" is just another way of saying "I don't like the way that car looks".). They both agree that some moral claims are true. They disagree over "what it takes specifically to make a claim true (or false)". Subjectivists would say the truth or falsity depends on one's mind. Realists (objectivists) would say the truth or falsity does not depend on one's mind.

 

[sangha]

What actually is, what can actually be objectively measured via scientific instruments.

Color isn't something that actually is. What actually is is light of certain wavelengths being reflected off of surfaces. Humans perceive that light as color.

 

[sangha]

That excerpt isn't an argument so I'm not sure why you think it demonstrates your point. That excerpt highlights the major areas of contention in the meta-ethical debate.

Moral realists and subjectivist anti-realists actually both agree that "moral claims have what it takes to be true or false, aka truth aptness" (as opposed to noncognitivists who argue that moral claims are not truth apt. For example an nocognitivist might argue that saying "X is wrong" is just another way of saying "I don't like X" in the same way you might say "That car is ugly" is just another way of saying "I don't like the way that car looks".). They both agree that some moral claims are true. They disagree over "what it takes specifically to make a claim true (or false)". Subjectivists would say the truth or falsity depends on one's mind. Realists (objectivists) would say the truth or falsity does not depend on one's mind.

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't see how that provides a method for determining which moral claims are true and which are false.

 

[the_recruit]

That's not actually true.

If there's a cat, and one person says it's blue, another says it's red, another says it's black, etc...It's possible that one person is correctly reporting its' color. IOW, the fact is that there is an objective truth concerning the cats' color even if some people are not seeing that truth.

It depends on how you define color. If you're talking about color as being the wavelength of light, then it's objective. If you're talking about color as being the sensation that light of a particular wavelength elicits in us, then it's subjective (subjective = mind dependent). Light of a certain wavelength needn't necessarily elicit the same experience or sensation in every person. For example, color blind people or animals. People with synesthesia. Or perhaps some alien species that experiences light as a completely different, unimaginable sensation.

None of those experiences of light of wavelength X are "wrong" and no single sensation is "right". They are all correct, because the experience of color is subjective.

For me, the issue here is that morality is not something that can be shown to have an objective truth

You can level that argument against subjectivist morality as well. You can't demonstrate subjective moral truth either.

 

[sangha]

It depends on how you define color. If you're talking about color as being the wavelength of light, then it's objective. If you're talking about color as being the sensation that light of a particular wavelength elicits in us, then it's subjective (subjective = mind dependent). Light of a certain wavelength needn't necessarily elicit the same experience or sensation in every person. For example, color blind people or animals. People with synesthesia. Or perhaps some alien species that experiences light as a completely different, unimaginable sensation.

None of those experiences of light of wavelength X are "wrong" and no single sensation is "right". They are all correct, because the experience of color is subjective.




You can level that argument against subjectivist morality as well. You can't demonstrate subjective moral truth either.

I agree with all that you said.

 

[the_recruit]

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't see how that provides a method for determining which moral claims are true and which are false.

There have been tons of proposed foundations for determining moral truth (or lack thereof). You'd have to get into a specific theory proposed by a specific philosopher to get into those details.

But in the end there is no consensus on meta-ethics, every single theory has holes in it. Some more than others. It comes down to a matter of opinion.

 

[sangha]

There have been tons of proposed foundations for determining moral truth (or lack thereof). You'd have to get into a specific theory proposed by a specific philosopher to get into those details.

But in the end there is no consensus on meta-ethics, every single theory has holes in it. Some more than others. It comes down to a matter of opinion.

Which is how I see it too. When someone can present a theory with no holes, then we could say with certainty that "yes there are objective morals" or "no, there aren't objective morals". Until then, statements like the OP's can not be supported.

 

[the_recruit]

Which is how I see it too. When someone can present a theory with no holes, then we could say with certainty that "yes there are objective morals" or "no, there aren't objective morals". Until then, statements like the OP's can not be supported.

Right, but we have real life moral dilemmas to deal with in the meantime. Unfortunately, we can't take a rain check on those until a later date when we know for sure (a date that may never come, I would say). So we have to pick the least imperfect theory and roll with it.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Depends on if they see what's actually true. The only thing that matters is the reality.

The point is "color" isn't an objective reality. It literally depends upon the optic nerves and photic processors of an organisms eye(s).

Just
Like
Morals