The Existence of Objective Morality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
41

Would you vote for someone to be your God?
I think most people would not only say “no”, but “Hell No!” And yet when anyone votes for any person to have authority of any kind, they are voting for that person to be a little closer to being a god. And what is to limit how close to a god they get?

Morality is living by a code of conduct. If a man is notably amoral, he doesn’t live by any code of conduct, which means that he might choose to do anything that he can get away with at any time based merely on a whim. He is “as a god” to the degree that he can get away with it. He answers to no one other than opportunity and his whims.

On the other hand, if a man is notably moral, he lives by a code of conduct. It might not be a good code or it might be a great code, but at least it is trustable or at least more trustable than having no morality at all. One might trust him to be an adversary or be his friend. In either case it is more advantageous to the voter if the man maintains a predictable code of conduct, preferably one openly defined.

What that means is that voting for a moral person, even if their morals are not pleasant, as long as they are not obviously malevolent, is itself more moral for everyone than voting for an amoral person. If he turns out to be bad, at least the experience teaches which set of morals to avoid. But if he had no morals and turned out bad, all you have learned is to not vote for someone amoral. And you could have deduced that before you voted.

The moral man is accepting that he is not God, regardless of what his morals might be. He is accepting a restriction on his actions and thus not God. He is less free to abuse his given authority.

Thus it is predictably objectively moral to vote only for moral people to hold offices of authority.

42

That is true to a degree. Predictability, as an index of excluding behavior which is not absolutely god like and omnipotent has the flip side of relative objectivity regardless. it is true that within the common sense definition of
morally right behaviors there are perceivable limits where one could assert a useful paradigmn of objectivity, however such objectivity may change as the variable contexts change perceptions toward it.

As a consequence, there may be points of view, which may not be relevant within those contexts.

Does that make it less objective? I honestly don’t know, but logically it would appear so.

43

Okay, the state executes John. Some applaud it as moral and just. Others condemn it as immoral and unjust.

Does this behavior then “conform to virtuous rules of conduct”? And how in the world would we determine this “independent of anyone’s opinion and perception”?

No one is at odds regarding the meaning of the words. They all agree that the dictionary is the place to start.

But who is say that capital punishment either is or is not objectively moral?

Take for example this rather famous case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker

Has there ever been a moral argument about her execution that transcends conflicting points of view? If they don’t execute her it is surely “objectively advantageous” to her and to those who love [or have forgiven] her. But is it then “objectively advantageous” to the families of her victims – those who despise and have not forgiven her?

What constitutes a true moral justice here? How would the moral objectivist frame the argument?

44

What is the indefinite integral of sin(x)/cos(x)?

Cross the nation asking that question of everyone you meet. What would you expect for answers?

Many would simply say “I don’t know”. Some would have a pocket calculator or intelli-phone and look up an answer. Some would try to remember and give you an answer. Some would misremember and give you an answer. But you wouldn’t really know who was right and who wasn’t. So of course, you would conclude that it must be merely a matter of opinion.

But then if you were to ask of morality, religion, national or international politics, or psychology, suddenly everyone becomes an expert and offers an answer. Again, you assume that it must be merely a matter of opinion.

When you see someone using a machine to find the answer to the math problem, you assume that they probably have a “correct answer”. You are aware of machines that can give exact answers reliably. So you tend to trust those answers as being objectively true.

But note that a simple math equation is nothing compared to the sophistication of a question of human behavior and interaction, such as morality. Yet somehow so very many people consider themselves to be as much an expert as anyone else. They don’t have a machine to tell them the “correct answer”. Although literally as we speak such a machine is in the works. Not long from now, they will be able to consult their intelli-watch and give you the “correct answer” to even your questions on morality. And you will know they are correct because the machine told you so.

You presume that a machine can handle a math problem. But at the moment, you probably think that a machine could never handle a morality problem. Yet you expect ordinary people to handle human behavior or morality questions and yet not math questions. And when they don’t give consistent answers, you conclude that it must be just a matter of opinion.

Is it at all true that because you can’t get a consistent answer, there must not be an objective answer? Even if you got a consistent answer, is it true that such an answer must be correct? Can you even gauge if there is a correct answer simply by how people respond to the question? All people have been wrong throughout history concerning just about everything. Yet you still know that there are actual objective truths, “correct answers”. And you now trust machines to give them to you, more so than people. Why is that?

Machines use logic, predefined concepts, and relationships to reliably deduce answers. And that seems to make them correct far more often than people who do not do that. When people have their handi-dandy intelli-watches, they can rely on getting consistently correct answers even to human behavior questions. And for the same reason. But until then, you are stuck with people being experts at things they have never even studied and you presuming that all such answers are merely subjective. But does that really mean there was no objective answer to be given? And how would you discern it even if it was given?

The existence of objective truths has nothing to do with the subjective opinions that people offer, no matter how many offers are given. But you won’t believe them until some machine tells you the “correct objective answer” because you can’t work it out for yourself “down here”, so you leave it up to those “up there” to provide you with a machine, after which you gain ultimate confidence in the objective truth of the matter.

Of course some of us do go “up there” and work it out for ourselves and find the objective answer for ourselves, but you don’t know that.

And as far as your John and Mary incident, as I told you from the beginning, such things must be handled by detail of the circumstances. Note that the math problem was about an indefinite integral. An abstract answer can be given to an indefinite integral. But a definite integral, a real life problem requires the details of the circumstance and cannot be answered without them.

There are indefinite morality questions, answered in abstract terms, and definite morality questions, answered in specific terms. But for every objective answer received, you should expect thousands more subjective opinions offered. You cannot know the difference. And you cannot know if the machine has begun giving intentionally wrong answers so as to persuade.

Your opinion concerning objective morality does not alter the objective truth of objective morality, does it.

45

This sounds familiar…

…as I am sure this will:

[i]Again, James, I’m sure that in your head this is a perfectly reasonable response to the points I raised above. But to me it is but one more bunch the words defining and defending another bunch of words. Basically you are saying that objective morality does exist because your argument says that it does.

Ah, but then it only exists re John and Mary and their dead baby, if one had access to all of the “details” that encompassed their own particular circumstances. So if, in the future, someone wants to know if their own unique abortion is objectively moral they should contact their nearest RM representative [only HERE for now] and apprise him of all the relevant “details”. Then the RM rep will tell them. Though I’m not really sure how long that takes on average. [/i]

Only on this thread, James, I’ve shifted the discussion to capital punishment. Same thing though?

46

I’m saying it because at least I have an argument which you seem unable to refute.
Do you have an argument that says that it doesn’t exist?

47

My argument is more that your argument is “irrefutable” because it is predicated on the assumption that the definitions you give to the words in the argument are true objectively.

Now, you can then argue that we must stay “up there” for as long as it takes [forever if need be] establishing if in fact your definitions are true objectively.

Only then [it seems] can we even consider the extent to which these definitions have any relevance with respect to the actual moral conflicts that flesh and blood folks like us become entangled up in.

But, on another thread, when I asked you to…

…cite some examples of exchanges you have had in which it was you who agreed that the definitions used by others were in fact more rational than your own. Has that ever happened?

And…

…then cite some examples of exchanges in which you and others agreed on the definitions of the words and then proceeded to use those definitions to explore actual human behaviors that had come into conflict regarding moral values.

…you give me little or nothing.

On the other hand, I accepted the dictionary definitions of “objective” and “morality” as a place to start in exploring this “down here.”

48

Hey Iam, I said a couple things in this thread already to “start exploring” as well. Did you read them? Do you think they are relevant and interesting?

49

Yes, I responded to them. On this page above.

50

I meant this post, Iambiguous. I’m on a phone, sorry , if you already responded to it . I don’t think you did though.

51

The amoral crusader returns! (thats me…)

To answer your original question James, I think the logic falls apart at the point where you use the term “objectively advantageous.” I would argue that nothing in reality can be said to be “objectively advantageous” without referencing a particular goal. In your health food example, if you are saying that the fact that the food improved the persons health (regardless of his opinions or desires) means that the healthy food is “objectively advantageous” then this statement would be incomplete in its current form and thus inaccurate. While it may be true that it is “objectively advantageous” to eat healthy foods IN ORDER TO BE HEALTHY, It is not “objectively advantageous” to a body to be healthy. NOTHING is “just objectively advantageous.” It is only “objectively advantageous” to be healthy and thus eat healthy food if you reference a particular goal for which being healthy IS ADVANTAGEOUS. For example: “In order to have more mobility, it is very likely that being healthy is objectively advantageous” or “in order to prolong your existence in the current ecosystem, it is very likely that being healthy is objectively advantageous.” But, for example, if your goal is to prevent inertia: “in order to prevent inertia, it could be argued that becoming morbidly obese is objectively advantageous.”

Now before you go and ridicule my example of a goal for which being healthy is not advantageous, consider the nature of evolution. Evolution is full of cases of mutations that seem dis-advantageous in a particular set of circumstances, but turn out to be essential to that organism’s survival when the ecosystem changes. You can think up the most ridiculous seemingly dis-advantageous case, and with a good imagination someone could come up with a plausible set of circumstances that would make that case advantageous. The theory of evolution is designed to account for such cases. It is entirely plausible that becoming morbidly obese could become extremely advantageous given the right set of circumstances.

Importantly: Bear in mind that in the above description of evolution, the assumed goal is prolonging the survival of a species. Thus cases are said to be advantageous when they achieve this goal. But who is to say that it is objectively advantageous to a species to prolong its survival? That is not built into the definition of advantageous. From google dictionary: “advantageous: involving or creating favorable circumstances that increase the chances of success or effectiveness; beneficial.” There is no mention of which goal it has to increase the chance of success or effectiveness for. It is completely context dependent! I cannot even logically say that my own survival is objectively advantageous.

Up to this point I have been trying to illustrate the nature of the term “objectively advantageous.” I think It simply does not make sense to say that something is “just objectively advantageous” without referencing a particular goal. The conclusion from this is that ANYTHING can be effectively, logically argued to be “objectively advantageous” if you pick the right goals. To which you might argue that “it is ridiculous to think an individual or a society would choose “prevention of inertia” as a primary goal of behavior.” Individuals and societies tend to share common goals. Such as Anon’s assertion that all sentient organisms seek happiness. While I disagree that ALL organisms do this (you never know what kind of fucked up wiring an organism might have - happiness may not be their primary directive biologically and sometimes some ideas can become primary directives to a point where it would be difficult to categorize their behavior under the category “pursuing happiness”) it IS safe to say a very large proportion of humanity have very similar fundamental goals. But then the fact that most people feel this way does not an argument make for its objectivity.

By using the term “objectively advantageous” you have shifted the moral question to “what are good vs bad goals?” instead of “what are good vs bad actions?”

Your argument about calculators and that people are too dumb to do math but yet believe they can do complex moral calculations falls apart when you talk to an expert philosopher (thats me! :smiley:) When you talk to an expert mathematician he/she may be able to answer your difficult math question objectively. When you talk to an expert philosopher, or at least a thoroughly logical philosopher, I think most of them should see the reality as I see it. The reality is this:

There is no such thing as objective value in the universe. The universe, as far as we can currently tell, is just stuff bouncing around. Value is created by minds. This should inform you about the nature of morality. Morality should be considered as a different variation on a concept we seem much more willing to accept as purely subjective. Beauty.

52

I believe that I stated that, although perhaps not in the OP directly.
You subjectively choose what you want. And then what you do is either objectively advantageous to it or isn’t (or neutral). The actions are objectively advantageous to the subjective goal.

The statement is that the healthy food is objectively advantageous to a body in need of such food in order to be healthy.

You seem to be conflating evolution with unawareness.

What is seemingly advantageous at any one time, might not really be advantageous due to an unseen upcoming change in ambience. But that is not “evolution”. You are actually supporting the existence of objective advantageousness by stating that a change made something more advantageous than had been surmised.

Evolution is the destruction of one state (or person) in such a way as to produce a “stronger” state or person. But the goal of the original person was not to die out and leave something behind that would be stronger. If that goal is consciously chosen, evolution no longer works. For evolution to work, one must resist it at all cost. It is by not being able to resist evolution sufficiently that evolution wins the battle and destroys the weaker state, leaving only the stronger. But if evolution is intentionally chosen, the new state is the result of a prior choice, not a prior contest of strength.

Something cannot be favored if it no longer exists. That which supports continued existence (survival) is necessarily advantageous to its existence and thus to it (since it IS its existence).

Haha… yeah well… we’ll see about that. :sunglasses:

“Objective values”, like “universally advantageous”, would be a different subject.

53

I’m not sure if by “conflicting goals” you are referring to what I call “conflicting goods”.

Goals and goods are not the same thing to me. A goal is something you want to reach because you see it as enhancing your life in some manner. Then it is just a matter of either achieving it or not. If you do “the right thing” you will. So, your goal might be to get a promotion at work. But then suddenly you find yourself pregnant. Giving birth is seen by you as an obstacle to the goal. So you shift your goal to getting rid of the baby. You abort it. You get your promotion. Goal accomplished.

But that’s not the same thing [for many] as doing what is “good”. Goals, in other words, can come into conflict when the discussion shifts to morality. Some see abortion as a good thing [in any particular personal situation], others as a bad thing [in every particular situation]. Or in some situations but not in others.

So the goal of some is to live in a world where women have the right to choose. While the goal of others is to live in a world where no babies are ever aborted.

My point is that “conflicting goods” can be defended with reasonable arguments from both sides. But in being reasonable it doesn’t make the arguments of the other side go away. So how objectively [philosophically] is this resolved?

54

I suspect that might be Your problem. They are NOT different things to other people. You have apparently presumed them to be different.

55

I agree that working out these kinds of things is complex. But you’re not addressing my post at all. All those things you mention – job promotions, giving birth, the right to choose, etc. – are all like the “dinner out” in my analogy. I said that we could start by asking what the “higher” goal (or good) of all these things is. My assertion here is that in looking for the goal or good that all these things stand for (e.g. “dinner out” is a tool to achieve something other than “dinner out”), we don’t simply come up with an abstraction, we come up with something concrete, surprisingly enough – happiness. Because we are sentient beings, we orient ourselves towards trying to get what we want, in order to be happy. That is very nearly the definition of sentience. That is what all sentient beings have in common. Rocks don’t do this. Plants don’t do this. Sentient beings do this.

Now we may agree so far, but disagree about whether there are sound methods to achieve happiness, just as there are sound methods for achieving all kinds of other goals. Since happiness is as concrete as any other goal, and for many other reasons I won’t go into (like experimenting in a long term way and assessing the results), I believe that there are concrete steps involved that will lead towards happiness. And I don’t think those steps have anything directly to do with going out to dinner, getting a promotion, having a baby, etc.

If you disagree, as I suspect you will (it’s ok), I’d ask if you believe that happiness is randomly produced – that your thoughts and actions have absolutely no relationship to your state of mind (happiness, suffering, etc.).

56

Did the Russian give up already???
If that’s the case, they really should have held the Cold War in Texas.
It would have been merely “The Cold Night in Texas”.
:wink:

57

Okay, in the abortion debate, what constitutes the “higher good” when goods come into conflict? Happiness for who? In other words, what happens when what makes the pregnant woman happy – removing the fetus as an obstacle to her promotion – makes other folks very unhappy. And the fetus itself of course is destroyed. I don’t see “working these things out” as just complex, but beyond reconciliation. Or, rather, I have not come across an argument [yet] myself that convinces me they can be reconciled.

I’m really just not sure how your argument fits in here.

Are you suggesting that philosophers are able somehow to resolve this rationally? James seems to. But only “theoretically”. In the interim, we just have to accept all the definitions he gives to all the words in the argument. He can’t lose. Either [eventually] the theory [RM] will be born out as “in fact” true objectively or he can always insist that if your definitions don’t match his, you must be wrong. By definition. But always his.

Do we agree? It’s not clear to me how you addressed the distinction I make between “goals” and “goods”. It would seem there are always ways to determine if you employed sound methods to achieve happiness. Are you happy? Yes? Well, you must have done something sound. But what if doing what makes you happy results in the unhappness of others? Or what if what once made you happy now makes you unhappy? I recall for example an exchange with Mr. Reasonable about making money in the stock market. Mr Reasonable loves money. It makes him happy. And he has found “sound methods” for earning it in the stock market. But some argue that the manner in which those who own and operate the stock market on Wall Street have made the lives of millions of folks on Main Street [who barely manage to subsist from week to week] very unhappy. That’s the distinction I make here. Is capitalism a good thing or an evil thing? Is there a way to determine [through RM] the extent to which it is reflective of an objectively moral world? Or will these sorts of differences [regarding value judgments] always be reflected in political arguments instead?

I believe that our capacity to express an emotional and psychological state that most call “being happy” is derived from human biology. But what in particular this will mean to any one particular human being is derived in turn from all that is encompassed in what we call nurture. Different things make different people happy. And this is embodied in dasein. And daseins come into conflict over and over and over again regarding what they believe should make eveybody happy. Usually what makes them happy.

58

Hi Iambiguous. I’m talking about the kind of happiness that isn’t tied in a one-to-one relationship with the thing you want. A kind of unconditional happiness (though there are of course conditions - like you have to be alive and sentient to be capable of happiness). Happiness is kind of a lame word for this, to be honest, but I don’t know of a better one to use. It is to be distinguished from pleasure, for instance. Anyway, this kind of happiness isn’t caused by things like a good dinner or winning a political debate. It’s helped along by certain kinds of thoughts and actions and attitudes, hindered by others, and isn’t “tied” to anything other than the most basic conditions as outlined above).

I know this is just an assertion and not really an argument. You don’t have to believe it.

59

Oh, utilitarianism or the Bible or objectivism or whatever. Not sure. I’m just saying that the idea of objective morality doesn’t eliminate considering the particulars of a circumstance. You don’t have to say wacky things like “Killing a human being is evil all the time no matter what!” in order to have objective morality.

60

I agree in spirit, Ucci.