Morality is not subjective

[JRMcC]

I cannot help but wonder that Straw Dog hit the nail on the head

Yeah he's right. I don't want to have a constructive discussion with people that disagree with me. I wish they would jus go away.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't understand what you're objecting to. My point is there is not objective morals. If there were, what would they be based on? It can't be people as the examples you given. He is saying without our designating what is right or wrong, morals are inherit in nature-it's objective. How so?

You said person hence people. Read the post again.

You'll have to add more commentary since I don't know the point you're referring to and what you're disagreeing with.

I know personally I don't see the OP claim as valid. Nature just is. There aren't "laws" of nature. It doesn't claim laws or how things "supposed" to be. It's our/people's need to find pattern,organization, and meaning behind the external world they live in. That's where our morals come from.

If they are objective, what is the foundation of them?

 

[JRMcC]

Another thoughtful response, thank you!

especially with humans who often change what they think is moral and proper, proving we are just making up "morality" as we go along

I see it differently. When people change their morality they (more often than not I think) change it in order to become more good (they may do it for selfish reasons though). People know that there is such thing as right and wrong and they go through a process of balancing their selfish needs and prejudices with what they think is right. When you try to become more good you must be conceding that there is objective goodness to work toward, though it is very hard to know exactly what is right in what situation.

as social animals we evolved to feel this sense of "morality" because it helps establish and maintain group bonding, and without our "pack" we tend to not do quiet so well.

So are you saying the desire to do good is a bit like a sex drive? It's a natural impulse?

I find animals such as most other primates (pretty much excluding us and chimpanzees) and elephants are for more "moral" and noble than us humans.

Right, maybe they are. I don't think that's super relevant to this discussion though.

We didn't discover anything about the universe other than it's expanding outwards, it's filled with trillions and trillions of galaxies, nebula, stars, black holes, and other bodies, and it's governed by the laws of gravity. We've not discovered anything the proves or even suggests that morality is objective and intrinsic.

We have discovered things that are not physical. Check out the monty hall problem if you haven't already. The answer to that problem is a weird property of the universe and it has nothing to do with stars and gravity or whatever. Building a house on a cliff that's about to fall is stupid. Stupid exists objectively too and it has nothing to do with planets and stars.
Nothing suggests that morality is objective? What about the fact that most everyone goes about as if it is objective. That's the first thing off the top of my head.

With logic and engineering, something either works or doesn't. Logically an argument is sound or it is illogical. An electrical circuit is either complete and energy flows, or the circuit is not complete and there is no flow. Gears are timed and sized to fit a certain ratio so a machine will work properly, or the ratio is off and the machine is put at risk of being damaged. Morality does not have such concrete laws or rules to follow. There is no "pass/fail" with it like there is with logic, science, and engineering.

Hmm... I don't think engineering is pass fail. You and I could both write computer programs that do the exact same thing but they may be implemented differently under the hood. Yours might be optimized, mine may be a bit slower because of poor design choices. Third person writes program that crashes. So there's a continuum there in engineering, it's not a pass/fail thing necessarily (unless you have super detailed design requirements I guess). Morality is also a continuum like that and it's not physical, or on/off or anything life that.
Some engineering principles are objectively better than others, just like some moral principles are objectively better than others. I guess that's what I'm saying.

There would be no buildings, thus no "best way" to build them.

Ehh... That's neither here nor there I think.

 

[Shad]

I don't understand what you're objecting to.

Equivocating killing with murder and that using people as a basis for objective morality is a facade for inter-subjectivity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hi guys, so 'goodness' isn't objective in the same way that gravity is subjective. You can't prove it with some kind of mathematical theorem. By the way Mestemia, I actually don't think we need to define morals in order to have this conversation. I think you can bring it down to just a few examples.

Ok maybe I can concede that in some lofty and bizarre way it's possible that morality is subjective underneath all the layers. I just don't really believe that. Here's another way to put it, and maybe this actually different from what I originally said but whatever:
Those who say morality is subjective and then go around telling people what's right and wrong are exhibiting bizarre behavior. They are saying one thing and then acting as if another thing is true. It makes me suspicious of the whole thing.

"Morality is subjective but killing babies is wrong." What? That's nonsense, anyone can see that. "Hmm when I solve this equation I get undefined for answer. Anyway the answer is 5." Ridiculous. At the very least subjectivists are acting and thinking irrationally, even if their philosophy is technically true.

How is not defining morality (which is a huge subject that would derail this conversation) inhibiting our ability to have this conversation? You guys know what I mean by morality, is it right to murder this guy for no reason or is it wrong? Come on, you guys know what I'm talking about.

But if you really insist, why don't you start by telling me what you think morality is and we'll see if I agree with you.

It seems that you & I largely agree on the morals we have.
You just believe that morality is objective.
(This is, of course, self contradictory.)

Ayn Rand tried her hand at determining an objective morality.
Her argument was interesting, but ultimately unconvincing.
Still....there is much to be said for being interesting.
It's often more illuminating than merely being right.

 

[McBell]

Your view sounds like you're saying morals are inherited (we are born with morals). Is that true?

We have no morality or ethics until we can determine right from wrong.

 

[McBell]

Those who say morality is subjective and then go around telling people what's right and wrong are exhibiting bizarre behavior. They are saying one thing and then acting as if another thing is true. It makes me suspicious of the whole thing.

They are simply sharing what they deem is right and wrong.
since their "right and wrong" is subjective and their morals are based on what they consider right and wrong, morals are subjective.

"Morality is subjective but killing babies is wrong." What? That's nonsense, anyone can see that. "Hmm when I solve this equation I get undefined for answer. Anyway the answer is 5." Ridiculous. At the very least subjectivists are acting and thinking irrationally, even if their philosophy is technically true.

What you describe is the difference between individual and universal....
Yes, people can make their morality absolute for themselves.
This leads to the problem you seem to be having.
That your self inflicted absolute morality is somehow binding on others.

How is not defining morality (which is a huge subject that would derail this conversation) inhibiting our ability to have this conversation? You guys know what I mean by morality, is it right to murder this guy for no reason or is it wrong? Come on, you guys know what I'm talking about.

But if you really insist, why don't you start by telling me what you think morality is and we'll see if I agree with you.

I asked for a definition, not a list of examples.
If you define morality as "right and wrong" then morality is subjective simply because "right and wrong" is subjective.
Thus your declaration morality is objective is simply wrong.
Though I suspect you already know this and are merely attempting to avoid it.

 

[Revoltingest]

About the slavery through history thing, with all due respect I don't think this is valid. The fact that people have thought the earth rested on a turtle in the past has nothing to do with the way things actually are.

I agree that to reason from history doesn't yield absolute truths about morality.
That was my point.

And don't you think "subjective belief" is a contradiction in terms?

Not at all.

I agree that this stuff is strange and confusing and I don't think that human kind will ever fully grasp it.
And your last question I find strange (though i know you think what I'm saying is strange). How do we know what's true? Can you elaborate? Are you talking about complex systems of human beliefs? We know that gravity is true right? We deduce that from logic. I dunno maybe just explain what you mean a little more.

Gravity is not "true".
We have a particular understanding of it at them moment, eg, general relativity.
But we also know that it's inadequate in multiple areas....
- Reconciling the very small (quantum mechanics) with the very large (cosmology)
- Dark energy & dark matter
As George Box once said (paraphrasing here).....
All theories are wrong, but some are useful.
Useful is not "true".

I see morality as an emergent property of evolution of life.
It's neither right nor wrong.....there is only how we feel about it.
And that varies with time, place, & species.

 

[McBell]

Explain what you mean by this.

If morals are objective, what is there to debate?

 

[LuisDantas]

Hello Luis,

I would argue that there are far too many variables in play to predict all possible consequences for most actions. In fact, most consequences would be unintended or unpredictable via the butterfly effect.

That is quite true, and that is why it is such a challenge to be moral (and a fascinating field).

What it is not is an arbitrary choice.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Equivocating killing with murder and that using people as a basis for objective morality is a facade for inter-subjectivity.

I didn't relate killing to murder. That's why I used killing to separate it and question killing and why that is wrong objectively.

If I said murder, I know why it is wrong subjectively because we define the morals of murder. Killing, on the other hand, in nature isn't defined by our morals. The OP is saying there are objective morals. Using killing (not murder) as an example, what is that based on?

The second part, I asked what the foundation of objective morals are. I also said morals are subjective not objective (I disagree with the OP's claim). I also said morals have to do with people. If morals are objective (going back to the OP claim), them people do not need to exist for morals to exist. I disagree with that. If that is true, how? What are objective morals (morals without people's definition of right and wrong) foundation if there were no people who define and make them up?

 

[McBell]

I didn't relate killing to murder. That's why I used killing to separate it and question killing and why that is wrong objectively.

If I said murder, I know why it is wrong subjectively because we define the morals of murder. Killing, on the other hand, in nature isn't defined by our morals. The OP is saying there are objective morals. Using killing (not murder) as an example, what is that based on?

The second part, I asked what the foundation of objective morals are. I also said morals are subjective not objective (I disagree with the OP's claim). I also said morals have to do with people. If morals are objective (going back to the OP claim), them people do not need to exist for morals to exist. I disagree with that. If that is true, how? What are objective morals (morals without people's definition of right and wrong) foundation if there were no people who define and make them up?

My apologies.
I misunderstood what you were meaning.

Now I understand.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We have no morality or ethics until we can determine right from wrong.

If a person does not have any influence of right and wrong all of his life, he is without morals. Possible? Yes. Probable? Probably not. Regardless, some people as just explained have no morals.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My apologies.
I misunderstood what you were meaning.

Now I understand.

No problem. Takes awhile. You can disregard the other post.

We're good?

 

[McBell]

If a person does not have any influence of right and wrong all of his life, he is without morals. Possible? Yes. Probable? Probably not. Regardless, some people as just explained have no morals.

i wonder how many people in the really real world do not know right from wrong?
I am not wondering how many have a different idea of what is right and wrong, but honestly have no understanding whats so ever of the right/wrong concept.

 

[McBell]

No problem. Takes awhile. You can disregard the other post.

We're good?

I never thought we were not good...
Disagreement does not equate to anything other than disagreement.
at least for me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When you try to become more good you must be conceding that there is objective goodness to work toward,

I can and have worked towards being a "better person," and I did so without this notion of objective goodness. Rather, I reasoned things such adopting a non-judgemental attitude towards people's quirks and odd behaviors and presentations is mutually beneficial for myself and others. This is despite the fact that most people do tend to negatively judge those who are "different."

So are you saying the desire to do good is a bit like a sex drive? It's a natural impulse?

More or less. We definitely have a sex drive, but because we are sexually-reproducing animals, not because of some "objective force" that makes us so. With morality, it seems social animals developed that through evolution as a way to strengthen group ties and to have more cooperative groups as social animals inherently depend on others for their survival. We aren't like cats, snakes, or bears who take care of themselves and really only need others like them for reproduction.

What about the fact that most everyone goes about as if it is objective.

That is irrelevant as appeals to popularity do not make for an argument. Appeals to popular opinions and positions inherently do not make a statement true or false. Falsehoods and misconceptions are also commonly believed by most people.

Check out the monty hall problem if you haven't already. The answer to that problem is a weird property of the universe and it has nothing to do with stars and gravity or whatever.

Statistics are not "weird properties." They are actually understood well enough that election winners can accurately be predicted with only a small portion of the votes counted, accurately predict what cards will be turned in card games, and reach sound conclusions when analyzing raw data. It's only weird when someone manipulates it, misrepresents it, and tries to make it something it's not. And this has nothing to do with morality.

Building a house on a cliff that's about to fall is stupid. Stupid exists objectively too and it has nothing to do with planets and stars.

"Stupidity" only exists in the minds of those who interpret something as stupid. Outside of us, it doesn't exist. There are no laws or theories regarding stupidity, because there are none to be objectively determined.

I don't think engineering is pass fail.

Think of it like a flashlight. In its most basic structure, it has batteries, a light bulb, an on/of switch, and wires to put them all together. When the switch is turned off, it means the electrical circuit is broken/not complete, and there is no light, but when it's turned on, the switch is positioned to complete the circuit, allowing the electricity to flow. Morality has no such objective rules or procedures. With combustible engines, small and large alike, the timing belts and gears must be properly aligned or the engine doesn't work. This is what I mean by "pass/fail." It either works because the design is sound, or it fails because the design is flawed. Of course it can become much more complicated than that, but even with coding and robotics something that isn't working right means that somewhere there is a flaw in the code, a loose wire, bad circuit board, ect., and you cannot trouble shoot morality like you can a machine.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see how "calibration" would even apply.

We have our conceptions of what is proper and what is not that does not perfectly match the likely or expected consequences of our actions.

Our moral sense must be attuned and checked against reality. Calbration seems like a fair word to use.

Could you give an example of deducing a moral truth from objective premises?

At a particularly basic level of understanding, one can realize that people tend to cooperate when frightened, and to cooperate far better when they feel accepted and understood. There is also plenty of evidence to show that while people seek and avoid some things somewhat unpredictably, there is a very clear core of things that are basically universally wanted or universally avoided. It is not really a matter of opinion whether people need shelter, food and social interaction.

Yet there are exceptions, borderline situations and subtleties that make the situation somewhat more complex. For one, communicating our preferences is not always possible or effective for various reasons. Neither is our judgment consistently lucid and trustworthy. That creates a need to maintain some foresight to the best of our abilities.

As our ability to understand the effects of our interactions grows and becomes more reliable, so does our moral agency and moral responsibility.

Dang that's so well put it's hard to respond to. It sounds like you're sort of saying it's objective, but not in quite the same way I'm saying it is. Is that right? Or do feel like this conversation is sort of dumbing down the problem of morality?

I am not thinking in those terms. Mostly, I want to underscore that objective morality IMO exists, but that can't possibly translate into hard, rigid rules that do not take the specific people and circunstances into consideration. Morality is all about considering people and circunstances, after all.

It is also by necessity dynamic and changeable. What is moral will depend on the choices available, and one of the moral imperatives is to attempt to broaden those choices themselves.

 

[Quintessence]

Hi! The reason I brought up theism is because I know that most if not all Christians and Muslims would agree with what I said. You know, a lot of people base their morality on God. So I was kind of curious about what people like say, atheists, Taoists, or maybe resident tree huggers think about what I said.

As far as I'm aware, basing morality on a deity is particular to the classical monotheist religions, and in especially Christianity. I understand that since Christianity enjoys cultural dominance in the West that dialogues and discussions tend to assume the connection. Still, I'm not seeing much relevance to one being theist or non-theist with respect to one's ethical maxims unless that is a particular facet of one's theistic religious tradition (and it is not for many of us).

With respect to what you said, I agree, but not in the fashion that you probably intend. Existence to me is never conditional on the existence of humans; things exist regardless of whether or not there are humans around to be perceiving them or thinking about them. This applies as much to the idea of a gear as it does to the idea of moral goodness. That said, I doubt you intended to ask an ontological question there, and with respect to how "objective morality" is usually understood, I reject it. I follow a system of ethics based on virtues, not morals, and could probably be described as a moral nihilist. That is to say, nothing is inherently right or wrong; moral statements do not describe something that is "true" about the world, they describe something about how humans understand the world. In that, they are projections or attributions. Such attributions have their uses, of course, and humans can't get away without making them frequently.

What does theism mean to me? I guess off the top of my head I would say one is a theist if they believe the ultimate power behind the universe has certain qualities that we can identify with.

Based on this, I suppose I would not be a theist in your view. For the record, though, am a theist: a polytheist/pantheist/animist.

 

[JRMcC]

It seems that you & I largely agree on the morals we have.
You just believe that morality is objective.
(This is, of course, self contradictory.)

Interesting, so it would make more sense if I said I know that morality is objective? That's an interesting thought.

Ayn Rand tried her hand at determining an objective morality.

You mean she said "Morality is objective and here's how you determine what's right and wrong"? That's a bit different from what I'm saying.