Objective Morality?

Seems kind of like an oxy-moron, but simply entertaining the possibility raises some thought-provoking questions. What is morality? Can it truly exist outside of an interpersonal definition? Is there such a thing as true objectivity? Are all social constructs automatically subjective? Can objectivity and morality exist as one?

Just something I was discussing recently and thought I'd pick your collective brains.

 

Morality is subjective. Because of this, the way we view right from wrong becomes deceptive. Morality can exist without it being personal. When we hear current events we come across the notion of different topics, we are often swayed by the person telling it and how they feel, affecting our decisions. We are all subjective because we live under the rules of society. Can objectivity and morality exist as one? No. We come to conclusions based off facts, because of that we are being influenced.

 

It seems to defy the very meaning of the word, however seeing as we are not truth but rather biological structures with only an elevated sense of perception that grant us the ability to use intelligence to 'define truth', I would say that even objectivity is a construct, at least in part. There are objective things, such as empirical concepts that we have no means in which to transform based on our own perceptions and subjective notions like physical objects and the lack thereof; morality isn't one of them. That being said, I'd conclude that the rendering of intangible concepts as objective or not is subjective in nature.

I suppose, as well, our ability to perceive morality selectively, based on individual notions, renders morality subjective in nature.

 

If you believe in God or the devine, you believe in objective morality.

If you do not believe in God, you may believe that universal truths exist that are able to be known through a combination of perceiving and thinking. Many great philosophical thinkers have held this belief. They too believed in objective morality.

If you do not believe in God or universal truths, you most likely do not believe in objective morality.

My opinion is that it is impossible to ever truly "know" anything. That being said, certain assumptions are made for convenience and from those assumptions I think a decently objective ethical code can be determined.

 

There is a general moral code that I think is instinctive/rational in humans. For example, human's are not built to want to hurt other people. Yes, there are psychopaths who go against this norm, but they are exactly that - atypical.

Take the marines, who used to train to kill. Nowadays, after research in to PTSD and the amount of ex-servicemen who ended up violent or with a lack of empathy when they returned home, marine's use the instinct to defend only when necessary for defence - rather than to kill and treat the victim like an animal. By stimulating that moral feeling to protect and defend, rather than training the human to kill, one achieves better results because it doesn't conflict in the persons mind.

Similarly, research done by a Bob Hare (I think - could've been someone else I looked at) focused on toddlers. He'd show them a puppet show of 3 teddy bears, the middle bear would pass a ball to one of the others, and receive it back then pass the ball to the 3rd and the 3rd would run away with the ball. Even when the stealing teddy bear was changed around, the child would mostly (70% of the time) choose to play with the sharing bear when given the choice.

There are exceptions to the rule but I think basic morality is instinctive and common. Morals beyond the basic level are more nurture than nature so become subjective.

 

But Roary, why should humans assume that their natural intuition of what is right is necessarily what is objectively moral?
Often, humans will naturally put themselves above others, sometimes in ways a third party would view as contradicting the traditional definition of just. So, are they acting morally?

 

The majority have the same intuition, so I think it not only is common sense to use this but it generates the best results. There are exceptions to the rule, as you say but basic things like not hurting one another, sharing etc. are intuitive and make sense to us as rational beings.

One's environment will obviously alter this, but the underlying, basic consensus is there for a reason, no?

 

Morality is doing things we deem good. Everyone has their own perception of good, but good is something that is accepted by society and by the law, and by god.

 

Does anyone know " kant " i thing hes philosophy is trying to be as objectiv as possible

 

Very much so. But Kant tells us to create these maxims such as "Do not lie" or "Do not steal" as a guideline, but never tells us how or what should motivate these maxims. For example, as shown in the enquiring murderer example. If a someone ran past you, followed by a crazed, weapon-weilding murderer.. you're being un-moral by lying and saying you don't know where the fleeing victim is? Don't think so somehow.

 

Step 1 : act : lying to save a person
Step 2: maxime : im allowed to lie if i save one persons life with that lie
Step 3 : general law : you are allowed to lie if you save a persons life
Step 4 : is it possible to want that ? : yes so in this case its moral to lie

It is only non moral if its again demanting like for example stealing an apple
Step 1 stealing an apple
Step 2 im allowed to steal an apple
Step 3 you are allowed to steal an apple
Step 4 no becouse if everyone steals there will be soon noone selling apples so you cant steal apples and here is the again demanting thats why stealing is unmoral

Its reall hard to explain it in english, sorry becouse thats not the usual stuff we talk in english in school

 

Yes, by using the universal law. I understand that, but the problem arises when people have conflicting ideas on what would be truly universable and what wouldn't. It then becomes more subjective than objective.

It's simple and objective but soon becomes impractical & subjective depending on the individual's beliefs.

 

Universable= universal ? If so i know what you mean. First of all i think people knowing and undertstanding kant wouldnt conflit thry would debate. When creating an general law you always with "you are ? " i dont really know nomore , thats the major difference between your maxime and the general law so there shouldnt be to much space for speculations

 

People will disagree on what could be a moral law.

 

Using that logic, good books don't exist without accepting objective literary criteria. But they do exist, they just aren't the same for everyone.

Moral nihilism isn't a rejection of the existence of morality, it's a belief that morality is purely an invented construct. I find the reasoning to be compelling since I've seen no well-reasoned solution to Hume's is-ought problem. I can agree that what is is objective, but any preferential ought is not.

 

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying, but there's a nuance that I don't understand. As I see it, you're implying that both of the above statements can be valid. However, if it were possible for books to be objectively good, how could anyone form an acceptable subjective opinion about a book's quality? Isn't that like saying "In my opinion, A = A"?

Just because you're invoking a shared criteria, doesn't mean it's objective. Two Twilight fans arguing about which book of the series is best could have the exact same criteria for a good book, and thus can use that to gauge which book is best relative to their criteria. The fact that people can have different criteria is exactly what makes the quality of books subjective. You can't have multiple objective criteria.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. But are those pack rules not subjective? Did the pack not see homosexality as immoral not too long ago? Are there not multiple "packs" with varying moral norms?

Even if you were to argue that some moral codes has been universal, such as murder being considered immoral by civilization throughout all history, it still proves nothing. The fact that the rule is derived with this analogous pack rule logic means it's nothing more than argumentum ad populum to say that it's moral on those grounds. Because a rule is necessary in order to survive in the pack doesn't mean it's moral nor immoral.

Speaking of pathetic... at that point your argument is not even addressing morality.

IF you want to be a serial killer, you OUGHT to use a sniper rifle in a small city. That's merely an inference to achieve goal-oriented behavior.

That in no way addresses the issue of whether or not being fit is moral or immoral. Wanting to be a rapist says nothing about the morality of rape.

Replacing the IS with an arbitrary conditional whim (like "wanting to be happy") shows that you don't understand the is-ought dichotomy at all. "Being human" is the IS, then you would have to show why that implies that you OUGHT to be happy. Goal-oriented behavior and desires can be anything: moral, immoral, or amoral. Respective examples: wanting to feed the hungry, wanting to rape a woman, wanting brown hair.

 

Excuse me, but since there are 2 sharing bears and 1 immoral bear, isn't the result very close to chance? 70% against 66%. If so, the results are to be dismissed.