Objective morality?

[sayak83]

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

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

Time and Space also exist factually, it is believed. But human conventions are integral to how we define and quantify them. Please find me one objective entity that does not rely on human convention for their definition, classification, identification or measurement.

 

[PureX]

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.

That individual expressions of existence compete with each other to maintain their existence only serves to further support the assumption that it's better to exist than not to exist.

Why are you expecting them to behave otherwise ... i.e., for the good of all that exists? They are not "all of existence". They are just individualized expression of all of existence. So they compete to retain their individual expression.

You are doing philosophy in your head and it doesn't match what can be observed for at least one case of life.

You are trying to negate the point by ignoring the fact that individual expressions of existence would naturally seek to retain their individuality within the whole of existence. And that will cause them to compete. But I wasn't using individuality as the objective ethical imperative. I was using existence, itself. The individual expressions are a secondary issue.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That individual expressions of existence compete with each other to maintain their existence only serves to further support the assumption that it's better to exist than not to exist.

Why are you expecting them to behave otherwise ... i.e., for the good of all that exists? They are not "all of existence". They are just individualized expression of all of existence. So they compete to retain their individual expression.

You are trying to negate the point by ignoring the fact that individual expressions of existence would naturally seek to retain their individuality within the whole of existence. And that will cause them to compete. But I wasn't using individuality as the objective ethical imperative. I was using existence, itself. The individual expressions are a secondary issue.

Well, yeah, We clearly do morality differently.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Do you consider morality to be more like space and time rather than beauty? If so, why?

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

I just can't see how any morality can be proven to be objectively based, no matter how logical and superior it will usually seem to us. And hence will always be subjective even when we all agree to some particular values. Such is still a reflection as to being human-based, and as I pointed out earlier, we have no way currently of knowing if such pertains to all of existence rather than just our realm - given we don't know what some alien life have as morality, if such exists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

Objectivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I did mention philosophy (earlier), but such has about as much proof as any religion might have.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

You'll have to enlighten me as to how this is relevant.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

I'm not sure why morality should be entwined with survival.

 

[icehorse]

You'll have to enlighten me as to how this is relevant.

Fun exchange!

I see some patterns when people debate objective morality. The pattern I'm thinking about now is that "objective" is often viewed as rock solid, when I think even the things we might all agree are the most objective, rely on some shared philosophical axioms.

For example, we might say "trees exist". That seems like a clean, objective fact, correct? But implicitly anyone who agrees with that claim have agreed what a "tree" is, and what "exist" means.

But "objective morality" is a hot button topic. So people seem to subject the idea of "objective morality" to a higher standard than other types of objectivity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Fun exchange!

I see some patterns when people debate objective morality. The pattern I'm thinking about now is that "objective" is often viewed as rock solid, when I think even the things we might all agree are the most objective, rely on some shared philosophical axioms.

For example, we might say "trees exist". That seems like a clean, objective fact, correct? But implicitly anyone who agrees with that claim have agreed what a "tree" is, and what "exist" means.

But "objective morality" is a hot button topic. So people seem to subject the idea of "objective morality" to a higher standard than other types of objectivity.

It just seems to me that we cannot know anything as to morality being objective - in the sense that it has some independence - when we consider other lifeforms and possible lifeforms. Apart from what seems objective in the human realm - but as to such we are just assuming that such can be objective.

 

[icehorse]

It just seems to me that we cannot know anything as to morality being objective - in the sense that it has some independence - when we consider other lifeforms and possible lifeforms. Apart from what seems objective in the human realm - but as to such we are just assuming that such can be objective.

I would agree that we're just at the beginning of understanding neurology and consciousness. But it seems that the more we learn, the more we see similarities between conscious creatures of different species.

 

[Balthazzar]

Just stating what has existed in the past and often exists in the present too. And all I'm saying is that objective morality is a myth. Morality will have been very different in the past and in different societies and such will likely continue into the future. Such that even if we get some general concordance as to such - which we are reasonably close to on many things - such will still be subjective. As mentioned above, we would still have a long way to go with regards non-human life, and many wouldn't even contemplate including such in any system of morality - apart from that which favours them over non-human life.

I guess it depends on how you understand the definition of morality. If it's true it's right if it's not true, it's erroneous. Right and wrong - the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness. Truth matters. Verifiable facts matter. Subjective truth matters as individuals, but objective truth in not a myth. There are right (true) things and there are wrong (false) things in life. Discernment ability I would think beneficial.

 

[Kfox]

So, why do we expect any objective morality to occur in human life,

Who is this "we" that expects objective morality to occur in human life?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would agree that we're just at the beginning of understanding neurology and consciousness. But it seems that the more we learn, the more we see similarities between conscious creatures of different species.

Quite, but we are in no position so as to expect all creatures to have some overall same sense of morality, and such being objective. We simply don't know enough about the possible existence of life off-Earth too to make such judgments.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I guess it depends on how you understand the definition of morality. If it's true it's right if it's not true, it's erroneous. Right and wrong - the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness. Truth matters. Verifiable facts matter. Subjective truth matters as individuals, but objective truth in not a myth. There are right (true) things and there are wrong (false) things in life. Discernment ability I would think beneficial.

Right for who and wrong for who? And true in what manner? These things might seem clear in the religious realm but not so if there is no God and religions are just fabrications.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Who is this "we" that expects objective morality to occur in human life?

The we who apparently do believe in such things - but not me or several others here apparently.

 

[Yerda]

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

What state?

 

[blü 2]

I guess it depends on how you understand the definition of morality.

I'd say morality was about judging what is "good" and what is "bad" in human behavior.

The key word there is "judging". Moral judgment is an evolved trait of humans ─ I'd guess of gregarious animals generally.

We humans get our morality in two ways ─ from evolution and from learning. On the evolutionary side, humans show the following moral tendencies ─ dislike for the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, having respect for authority, being loyal to the group, and getting a sense of self-worth through self-denial. We've also evolved a conscience and a capacity for empathy. (I outlined one of the experiments from research >here<.) You'll notice that those tendencies are capable of conflicting ─ reciprocity vs respect for authority, for example.

The rest of our morality is about social interaction and good and bad manners ─ how to interact with people who are kin, older, younger, same or opposite sex, higher or lower in the peck order, figures of various kinds of authority and so on; how to dine in company, how to excrete politely, how to observe coming of age, pairing, birth and death, and so on.

The thing about all of it is that it makes it possible for humans to live in groups and obtain the advantages of cooperative action, which in evolutionary terms is advantageous to surviving and breeding. And that last-mentioned quality is about as close to "objective" as it gets.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What state?

The state of understanding reality minus religious beliefs. Given that many will not accept another position.

 

[PureX]

Right for who and wrong for who? And true in what manner? These things might seem clear in the religious realm but not so if there is no God and religions are just fabrications.

I think you are confusing the concepts of. relative and absolute with subjective and objective, here. Just because we humans interpret morality relatively subjectively doesn't mean that morality cannot be objective or universal.