Objective morality?

[Mock Turtle]

There can be objective morality and human societies may not follow it. That seems entirely possible. Is there any reason to believe that morality has to do with human survival?

And where would such come from? As to the last, well apart from religious beliefs and perhaps some philosophy, is there any reason to suppose there is an objective morality, for humans or as to anything? We are not that good at looking into the future but we can look back at our past - not so pleasant for most I suspect and why would it be any different in the future, given all the conflict that still seems part of our lives and attributable to so many differing beliefs. Fueled by morality or not. I just think objective morality is a hoax, and something that many will claim for their own particular beliefs.

 

[icehorse]

Well whatever we arrive at in the future, and if such a thing is possible which I doubt unless we discard so much, it will still be subjective I would posit and could never be objective - given it will have come from a human perspective. Allowing for nothing coming from the religious arena given who makes the choice as to which one we might choose - a vote, a war to decide such, or waiting for God to do the deed?

Well I would say that objectivity in general requires us to agree to some axioms in our thinking. So if that's acceptable for other domains in which objectivity exists, than why not morals?

 

[Curious George]

I'm sure some here know about what happens (or what used to happen) to the elderly and/or very young in some of the more traditional societies - the ones that have survived despite the encroachment of 'civilisation', and which no doubt existed for long periods in our past - most of such in fact. That is, that if any individuals weren't seen as essential to the group survival and they might have caused the group not to survive, then they were 'jettisoned' - a more benign word perhaps for often what did happen to them. This often applied to any elderly who were not really capable of looking after themselves alone, or where the very young could not be taken care of successfully given the resources available - birth of infants too close together perhaps. And any who know much about animal behaviour know this is true of many non-human species too - whether it is those that will kill the offspring of a future partner (so their genes lived on) or where those deemed sickly at birth were simply abandoned or killed - being a waste of resources.

So, why do we expect any objective morality to occur in human life, especially when we have cases such as hatred towards homosexuality, trans people, or those deemed worthy of death for certain crimes, and where appropriate morality might equally be seen as 'expedient to our purposes' - as to which some tend to accept these and others not. With the religiously minded often determining as to such things. Unless one does have the view that we just are not evolved animals - like all other life.

And isn't it the case that we might deem other such things necessary (or expedient) - as to human survival in the future - so as to throw objective morality into the bin?

PS I did already know about much of the above, but the thread was initiated by some of the things in the Jared Diamond book I'm currently reading - The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies?

It is true that cultures and groups of people have had practices which many today would find shocking. But it is a little bit of a misrepresentation to act as though these practices are the indicative of such moral diversity that no objective morality can possibly exist. I am not sure that there is any society that did not act following reason, However flawed we find those reasons today.

 

[sayak83]

And where would such come from? As to the last, well apart from religious beliefs and perhaps some philosophy, is there any reason to suppose there is an objective morality, for humans or as to anything? We are not that good at looking into the future but we can look back at our past - not so pleasant for most I suspect and why would it be any different in the future, given all the conflict that still seems part of our lives and attributable to so many differing beliefs. Fueled by morality or not. I just think objective morality is a hoax, and something that many will claim for their own particular beliefs.

Suppose we define objective morality to be that set of actions that, given a situation causes least amount of avoidable suffering and greatest amount of well being among sentient entities affected by those actions.
Since, for various possible actions, we can always interview the affected sentient beings and know how they were affected by such actions...such a definition would, in principle, make morality objective.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Suppose we define objective morality to be that set of actions that, given a situation causes least amount of avoidable suffering and greatest amount of well being among sentient entities affected by those actions.
Since, for various possible actions, we can always interview the affected sentient beings and know how they were affected by such actions...such a definition would, in principle, make morality objective.

Never underestimate the ability of subjective information from interviews about harm and suffering to make objective criteria subjective again. /medical ethology. That's why a lot of the time we avoid objective and subjective in ethics discussion amd just go with 'goal orientated.' Since half of the job is funding common goals anyway.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Suppose we define objective morality to be that set of actions that, given a situation causes least amount of avoidable suffering and greatest amount of well being among sentient entities affected by those actions.
Since, for various possible actions, we can always interview the affected sentient beings and know how they were affected by such actions...such a definition would, in principle, make morality objective.

Define it how you like but without anything to back up any claims such will still be subjective and human produced - given we have a long way to go to even understand what goes on in the minds of non-human species let alone any alien species that might exist. And given that many will not even accept that other species here on Earth have anything like the consciousness or other characteristics that we humans have.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is true that cultures and groups of people have had practices which many today would find shocking. But it is a little bit of a misrepresentation to act as though these practices are the indicative of such moral diversity that no objective morality can possibly exist. I am not sure that there is any society that did not act following reason, However flawed we find those reasons today.

Well these were examples at the extreme end of the scales - and mostly because of the circumstances within which these groups found themselves - but why think that humans as a whole will never face such again, and have to act accordingly? But apart from this, how on earth are we going to get consensus on such things as abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, death penalties, LGBTQ, etc. amongst the many issues that tend to cause disagreement - and expecting some objective moral pronouncement on such things? Agreement is about all we might expect and such being subjective.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well I would say that objectivity in general requires us to agree to some axioms in our thinking. So if that's acceptable for other domains in which objectivity exists, than why not morals?

As I see such, because basically we have nothing to back up such claims. A consensus will still be subjective. It is mainly only those with a religious belief I would suspect who do believe that objective morality exists - and coming from God. Not going to happen for all those who don't have such beliefs and hence any morals coming from such will be imposed upon them.

 

[PureX]

Existence requires energy and order to maintain itself. This implies to the human mind an ethical imperative favoring existence over non-existence. And once such an ethical imperative is established, the morality of any behavior in relation to that ethical imperative can be determined.

So establishing 'objectively derived morality' is possible, and is almost certainly a factor in the phenomena of human moral determination. The argument really resides in that fact that all human thought and determination is subjective of the humans doing the determine. And is ultimately, therefor, subjective.

But that's more of a semantic debate than a moral or ethical one.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Existence requires energy and order to maintain itself. This implies to the human mind an ethical imperative favoring existence over non-existence. And once such an ethical imperative is established, the morality of any behavior in relation to that ethical imperative can be determined.

So establishing 'objectively derived morality' is possible, and is almost certainly a factor in the phenomena of human moral determination. The argument really resides in that fact that all human thought and determination is subjective of the humans doing the determine. And is ultimately, therefor, subjective.

But that's more of a semantic debate than a moral or ethical one.

Does this include non-human life - given we might be rather alarmed at much of their behaviour - and us being so closely related.

 

[PureX]

Does this include non-human life - given we might be rather alarmed at much of their behaviour - and us being so closely related.

It includes all existential expression. To exist, and to keep existing, requires energy and order (persistent effort). This implies that it is better to exist than not to exist. And that is an objective ethical imperative. Using that imperative, we can then determine objectively moral behavior from objectively immoral behavior.

 

[sayak83]

Define it how you like but without anything to back up any claims such will still be subjective and human produced - given we have a long way to go to even understand what goes on in the minds of non-human species let alone any alien species that might exist. And given that many will not even accept that other species here on Earth have anything like the consciousness or other characteristics that we humans have.

You are confused about what objective means. For example the unit "second" is considered an objective measure of time. But the unit value is set and defined by humans only. The word objective does not mean that it something that is not produced by humans. It only means that the definition is precise enough that once you know what it means, there is no personal leeway on how it is understood, counted, measured etc.

 

[Koldo]

You are confused about what objective means. For example the unit "second" is considered an objective measure of time. But the unit value is set and defined by humans only. The word objective does not mean that it something that is not produced by humans. It only means that the definition is precise enough that once you know what it means, there is no personal leeway on how it is understood, counted, measured etc.

The problem here is the baggage that comes with the term. Historically, the concept of objective morality points beyond human conventions.

 

[sayak83]

The problem here is the baggage that comes with the term. Historically, the concept of objective morality points beyond human conventions.

I am pointing to a very simple fact. In most usual discussions, things like space, time, energy are considered objective facts of reality. Yet the way we define them, quantify them and measure them are based on humanly agreed upon conventions. The idea of objectivity is not that human conventions are not needed to define them...but that once defined, these definitions can be used reliably (almost algorithmically) to point out this entity without having to depend on personal judgements on the matter.
This can be contrasted with the concept of beauty which is subjective precisely because you cannot define and rank beauty in that fashion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You are confused about what objective means. For example the unit "second" is considered an objective measure of time. But the unit value is set and defined by humans only. The word objective does not mean that it something that is not produced by humans. It only means that the definition is precise enough that once you know what it means, there is no personal leeway on how it is understood, counted, measured etc.

I don't think I am, for example:

What Is Objective Morality?

Objective morality is the philosophical idea that right and wrong exist regardless of circumstance or personal experience. Learn more about it here.

www.verywellmind.com

Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion. It's the concept that some actions and beliefs are imperatively good or inherently bad, and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in.

How could we get to this state when we have so much disagreement inherent in our differing beliefs?

 

[Mock Turtle]

It includes all existential expression. To exist, and to keep existing, requires energy and order (persistent effort). This implies that it is better to exist than not to exist. And that is an objective ethical imperative. Using that imperative, we can then determine objectively moral behavior from objectively immoral behavior.

So predators and carnivores get an exemption?

 

[PureX]

So predators and carnivores get an exemption?

What do predators or carnivores have to do with what I posted? All things consistently expend energy to continue existing. Thus, they exemplify the ethical imperative of obtaining and maintaining the state if existence. When they act in accord with that imperative, they can be judged to be acting morally. When they act contrary to that imperative, they can be judged to be acting immorally.

 

[icehorse]

As I see such, because basically we have nothing to back up such claims. A consensus will still be subjective. It is mainly only those with a religious belief I would suspect who do believe that objective morality exists - and coming from God. Not going to happen for all those who don't have such beliefs and hence any morals coming from such will be imposed upon them.

Can you agree that our various spoken languages are each subjective creations that people in a region all tacitly agree to use?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do predators or carnivores have to do with what I posted? All things consistently expend energy to continue existing. Thus, they exemplify the ethical imperative of obtaining and maintaining the state if existence. When they act in accord with that imperative, they can be judged to be acting morally. When they act contrary to that imperative, they can be judged to be acting immorally.

Well, the problem is that there is at least one example of behavior among animals that contradiction that the function of individuals is to survive as such.
You are doing philosophy in your head and it doesn't match what can be observed for at least one case of life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I see such, because basically we have nothing to back up such claims. A consensus will still be subjective. It is mainly only those with a religious belief I would suspect who do believe that objective morality exists - and coming from God. Not going to happen for all those who don't have such beliefs and hence any morals coming from such will be imposed upon them.

No, here is an example of objective morality, which is not religious:

Objectivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org