James,
This might best be taken up over on “our” thread. Here you should be free to engage in “serious philosophy” – the sort of discourse that does not become all entangled in the extrinsic and extraneous stuff that seems to preoccupy me.
It wasn’t lost. And I agree, but right now, there is this single “bone to pick” concerning one simple conclusion. What is wisest to do next or in the long run, is another issue.
But this is all merely descriptive, and apparently described as a neutral bystander (observer; outsider). As I quoted from Aristotle, “still, we must try to offer help”. What help do you offer, and how is it helpful?
I don’t understand why an act would have to be good for everybody to be objectively good. What if an action is always good with respect to a certain set of circumstances, whatever our opinion on the matter, but that set of circumstances doesn’t apply to everybody?
Sure, but what makes a certain act objectively good in a particular situation?
Objective morality = morality that is objective.
Morality is differentiating good/bad, right/wrong. Objectivity was defined as free from personal bias.
In objective morality, objective is a description/attribute of morality. It is dependant on the morality. It means, differentiating good-bad/right-wrong without the influence of personal bias.
I say good, bad, right and wrong are defined by one’s goal. Defined by one’s person bias.
A prisoner of war who is tortured and tormented on a daily basis, may want to die to minimize their suffering. Forcing the prisoner to eat nutritious food, isn’t going to benefit their cause. If it directly harms the capacity to die, it’s not good for the prisoner in that sense. It’s not a moral act, in the judgement of the prisoner.
If the morality is influenced by personal bias, then it loses the opportunity to be objective. I say morality is defined by personal bias, thus, it isn’t and can never be, objective.
Objective morality is a combination of both definitions. Of course I’m going to conflate good with objective. This is no error. The objectivity of a morality is dependent on the nature of said morality’s good-bad/right-wrong.
If the process of defining morality conflicts with the standards of objectivity, then that morality is not to that standard.
As I underlined, I argue morality is not independent of bias, thus not objective.
Beyond bias, all is neutral. No will.
Intent/objectives create and define good/bad/benefit/advantageous.
Benefit - something that is advantageous or good; an advantage
Good - Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor
Advantage - any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success, interest, or any desired end
If you remove bias, you remove morality. So you can’t have an unbiased morality / objective morality.
Depends on your definition of objectivity.
As I said to James:
Joe,
All sentient beings want to be happy. In that sense they are completely biased. And that fact (that all sentient beings desire happiness) is central in at least some basic sense to all sound moral prescription. So I agree with you.
That said, I earlier used the same statement (that all sentient beings desire happiness) as a basis for what some might consider “objective” morality. I don’t like the term, personally, but maybe that’s just my personal bias.
The “situation” includes someone’s or something’s assessment of good. “Good” can be entirely subjective. But in the situation wherein such a subjective assessment has been made, then it can easily be objective that an act brought more good, “benefited”. Thus the act would be objectively good - for - that - person/thing.
No, morality is adhering to a conduct assessed as good.
Assessing the good vs bad is subjective. But whether the rules are adhered to or not, is objective.
We haven’t said that any particular act is universally moral.
And I am still asking if the argument in the OP is logically valid regardless of the conclusion.
Is that the case though? If Joe assesses a candy bar as good, and uses correct reasoning and actions to get himself one, does this have anything to do with what is good in a moral sense? To put it another way - by what criteria do we determine that Joe’s candy bar has nothing directly to do with morality? And wouldn’t that same criteria also tell us what is objectively good, morally speaking?
Who’s morals?
That is a question of universal good, not whether the person was acting morally or acting consistent with rules of conduct pertaining to good.
We have said nothing about there being only one set of morals, universal morals. We are talking about whether an act can be objectively in line with ANY set of morals. I would think the obvious answer is “certainly”, but first one has to understand the difference between having a single set of morals for all things, “universal morality” and “objective morality”.
But James, by asking “who’s morals”, are you suggesting that wanting a candy bar is a moral wish if I claim it as such?
Yes, any act either supports a given goal or it doesn’t (or it’s neutral with respect to that goal). You’re right - that’s obvious.
That was the only point in the OP.
But that, is a different question involving the assessment of good. Can one merely wish something to be good and by thus make it so?
The prescription is derived from the description.
On the other hand, I am arguing this: that neither my description nor its components – dasein, conflicting goods, political economy – is any thing other than my own subjective vantage point. It seems reasonable to me given the manner in which I have come to understand these relationships “out in the world”.
That said, my prescription always revolves around cautioning folks that with respect to moral and political values the danger lies more in objectivism [and authoritarianism] than in my own approach to these conflicts: moderation, negociation and compromise. And within the framework of democracy and the rule of law.
Still, I don’t deny in turn how inherently problematic moral nihilism can be as well. If anything can be rationalized there will be folks who will rationalize it.
It’s always a tug of war [for me].
And, as I noted to folks like mechanical monster on the thread with James,
[i]There is an aspect of my own frame of mind [moral nihilism] that is particularly troubling. And it is troubling to me too. And it is one that Moreno sometimes seems to point towards: how can I think like I do and interact with others at all? If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then everytime I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might just as well have gone in the other direction instead.
Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it together at all. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and political.[/i]
But just because my philosophy of life can have disturbing implications does not make it any less reasonable. At least not to me. Folks sometimes tap me on the shoulder and say, in effect, “that’s not a very positive or uplifting way in which to think about life”.
Right, as though that should be the criteria for determining what it is or is not reasonable to believe.
So the definitions are to be taken as given.
Okay. Although I doubt that perception can be removed from morality.
This particular use of the word ‘virtue’ is too general. Correct moral action would be advantageous to the stakeholders, although not necessarily all or in equal measure.
Okay that follows if we accept your definitions.
Sure. You can create a game and if the rules are well documented, then it’s easy to objectively decide if someone is following the rules.
On the other hand, if the rules are not well documented then a good deal of subjective interpretation may be required.
So if John and Mary are living in a place and at a time when the morality of abortion is well established, then objectively deciding whether the abortion is moral or not, is straightforward.
But that’s not what Iambiguous is talking about, is it?
He’s asking if the rules have a basis independent of perception and opinion. And he’s asking if there exists one set of rules which is independent of perception and opinion.
He is only feigning to ask that. He very strongly resists any reasoning that even begins to approach answering that question, to the point of inventing strawmen, lying, distracting, and dodging, thus the discussion is properly in the rant section. Hell it took weeks just to get a definition out of him. And then he went on and on saying how “yeah but that argument is only true when you accept the meanings of the words”… words that HE provided. 
And now he says that the reason he does that is because the real danger in life is objectivists… as opposed to contentious chaos mongering Magog.
I do not get it, James.
What do you precisely mean by universal morality and objective morality?
Do you see both the same or different?
And why?
with love,
sanjay
This is so far removed from the manner in which I view these things I can only imagine it must be close to manner in which James imagines how far removed my own understanding is of how he views these things. I think.
James,
Define “objective morality”. Then indicate how this definition would be applicable to a moral conflict we are likely all to be familiar with.
From the OP;
Moral conflict == one moral act that conflicts with a different moral act, usually due to a different set of morals or a poor application of them.
How could objective rules of conduct be defined , apart from subjective perception and opinion, unless they be laws handed down from a source other than human ? If morality is a human invention, it"s transcendental, and dependent on human perception and opinion. Otherwise God’s existence is a necessary pre-requisite, and objective morality would be tantamount to the existence of God.
The objection here could be,that God had to be invented to guarantee the belief in rules of conduct fabricated for the maintenance of mutual advantage in societal behavior. But does it really matter whether God is of a substantial or purely formal being? The way out of that dilemma is to try to understand God having capacity to inspire men to write the laws.In either case, objective morality had to be the work of God, or of men of God, who perceived advantage in defining beneficially moral conduct. God’s objectivity then becomes a matter of belief, and not perception or opinion.