Objective Morality?

[FourShots]

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.

 

[BGlave]

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.

 

[Arya]

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.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

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.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

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?

 

[2007scape]

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.

 

[Hubba Bubba]

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

 

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.

 

[Hubba Bubba]

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.

 

[Hubba Bubba]

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.

 

Arguing that morality is subjective IS arguing that morality doesn't exist.

If morality is subjective this means that moral rules are different for everyone. But if moral rules are different for everyone then there are no moral rules at all. One person will just declare that they can kill and rob people and no one else can disagree that this is immoral because for that person it is moral.

In otherwords: If you accept that morality exists then you accept that it is objective.

Once you have gotten to this point you will naturally ask: What is moral and what is immoral in an objective standard? Where do you even start?

It is a pretty rich topic for discussion but I would direct you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvTXFxPwb0 as your first port of call.

 

[Lewd Onii_chan]

Arguing that morality is subjective IS arguing that morality doesn't exist.

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.

 

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.

What a ridiculous argument. Total equivocation.

There are two contexts in which the phrase 'good book' can be used: The first is when you mean to say "In my opinion that was a good book" and the second is when you mean to say "This is objectively a good book."

You are equivocating the two.

Now if you were ever to argue with someone about whether a particular book is or isn't good then yes you are necessarily invoking objective criteria such as the complexity of the plot, depth of characters, compactness of transitions, style of writing etc. etc. In other words in order to argue about it, it must necessarily be objective.

So to restate my argument: If anyone can make up any rules they want and call that moral then there is no morality. Subjective morality would require subjective definitions of good and evil. You could never argue that one thing was evil or good because to another person their definitions for evil and good would be different. In other words people just making up anything and doing whatever they want; Subjective morality is exactly the same as having no morality.

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.

Good god. This is pathetic, honestly.

Firstly go out and try do things which are immoral and see how long it takes you to break down into a pathetic mess. Morality is no more subjective than is nutrition. Just because you can choose to eat the wrong foods, and just because everyone eats different foods, this does not magically exempt you from your own biology. People can choose to be evil just as they can choose to be unhealthy, this does not mean that health and morality are subjective! Human beings are all physiologically equivalent and this applies to mental health as much as it does to physical health.

To put it bluntly, moral rules are the abstract 'business-end' of pack rules. Like many mammals, humans are pack animals and have empathy with each other that allows us to operate in a pack. The pack rules are not subjective or the pack would not work. Don't kill, don't rape, don't steal are the fundamentals but there are more.

Further, the is-ought dichotomy is so easily solved with an IF, it is barely worth talking about.

IF you want to be happy and you are human [this is the IS] then you OUGHT to find out what sort of moral rules slot into your human brain and consistently apply them.

Another example:
IF you want to be fit and you are human then you OUGHT to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and exercise regularly.

Easy.

 

[Lewd Onii_chan]

There are two contexts in which the phrase 'good book' can be used: The first is when you mean to say "In my opinion that was a good book" and the second is when you mean to say "This is objectively a good book."

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.

To put it bluntly, moral rules are the abstract 'business-end' of pack rules.

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.

Further, the is-ought dichotomy is so easily solved with an IF, it is barely worth talking about.

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.

IF you want to be fit and you are human then you OUGHT to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and exercise regularly.

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.

 

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"?

It is possible for things to be objectively superior and for people to have subjective opinions at the same time? Yes. Some people think the Prius is a good car but by almost every objective metric it is not. Some people think that they have a healthy diet when in fact objectively they do not. It just means the opinion is unsubstantiated.

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.

Sets of objective criteria for books themselves can be argued and hammered out until you find the best criteria. This can always be done because all books ARE books. The category of book implies criteria/attributes that make it a book.

Again just because people can choose to have unsubstantiated opinions does not make opinion the same as fact.

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?

Pack rules never saw homosexuality as immoral. Religious ethics are a learned behaviour, similar to how animals will not touch an electric fence once they have done it a few times. Human beings raised in the absence of aggression do not exhibit social exclusion of homosexuals. If you know of any study that suggests they do, I'd be interested to read it.

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

.
No, this is not the argument. The argument is that your mind is not some blank slate that exists in a free floating abstract realm (as you and others seem to assume). It is a human brain built of biological circuitry which has been honed over many eons by the relentless forces of natural and sexual selection, and evolution. In other words you don't get to want what you want. You are human, you have human attributes, you must eat food that is nutritionally aligned with the human digestive system, and you must act in accordance to your CONSCIENCE or you will be mentally unhealthy. Ethics is the nutrition of the mind.

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.

The is-ought problem is not a moral problem. It is a simple statement that you can't get from what is to what ought to be. The missing link as I point out is the intention of the actor. In the case of inanimate matter, there is no ought, there is only cause and effect. The neutron is captured by U235 and it becomes U236 for example. There is no 'it ought to become U236', it simply does and could not be any other way. However in the case of animate matter -- decision making creatures -- there can be an ought, and it is always predicated on the intention of the animal. If the animal wishes to be dry it ought to find a cave.

Further, no one says you ought to be happy. But if you want to be happy and you are a standard human being (absent some mutation where you lack empathy) then you ought to be a moral person.

You can hide in the dusty leaves of abstract philosophy all you want but the reality is simple, and you already know it. It is like some chain-smoker with lung cancer clinging to a whitepaper where an argument is made that there is no link between cancer and cigarettes...

Now go read or listen to Universally Preferable Behaviour by Stefan Molyneux. The great thing about the truth is that you can get to it by almost any route if you apply reason and evidence consistently. And objective morality is no different. You can approach it the way I do, or the way he does, or the way Rothbard does, or (for the most part) the way Rand does. You still end up with the same set of moral principles.

 

[PijaVenosa]

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.

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.