The Objectivity of Morality

Talk about memory problems…

I wasn’t talking about whether morality is objective, silly goose. The question we were discussing, that you forgot while you were making this post somehow, is whether what matters is objective.

You can’t school someone if you can’t even remember what you were talking about.

I just finished giving you a reason to think what matters is objective—the fact that you can be wrong about what matters. It’s a very common experience. And all of the arguments for thinking what matters is objective are in all those arguments you haven’t responded to. I even put ‘mattering’ in my definition, in my very first post. What you’re saying now is the equivalent of,“yo guys, I wasn’t talking about baseball, I was talking about a game where a pitcher throws and you swing a bad and run the bases”.

Bottom line: Do you have a single reason for thinking what you do? Or do you have a single response to any of my arguments?

If not, I don’t see a reason to continue.

Mo_,
If a person’s values are subjective, and thus their actions are moral or immoral for subjective reasons, in what sense is that morality objective?

To the extent that it is objective, how is it distinct from logic? i.e. “if I value something and an action will help me achieve it without having to sacrifice something else I value, then I should do that action” looks a lot like a logical statement about value, rather than a moral statement about action.

Finally, is morality itself not something that motivates you independently of your other motivations? It seems like I could say, “you ought to do X because it is the morally right thing to do.” Is that statement tautological? Does that comport with most conceptions of morality?

FJ,
How can a term that hasn’t been defined be ‘grossly debased’? And if it is grossly debased, aren’t you acknowledging that you have a personal understanding of what it means for a statement to be a moral statement that you aren’t sharing with us? I understand your Payless argument, but there’s a difference between saying, “that definition is simply uninteresting,” and saying, “that definition debases what the thing actually is.” It’s uninteresting to say, “God exists” when by ‘God’ you mean a Payless. But it can only debase ‘God’ is there is some grander implied definition.

Is the word ‘ought’ in the statement, “you ought to see Batman,” really the same word as the word ‘ought’ in the statement, “you ought not kill”? The words are shaped the same, but the sentiments behind the words seem clearly distinct: if you asked the first speaker, “why?” they would likely tell you something about how cool the movie is and how they know you like superhero movies; if you ask the second speaker, “why?” they will tell you something like, “because it’s wrong.” Aren’t we just dealing with homophones here?

Finally, have you gained ground by moving the definition of morality from “the topic concerning how you ought to act” to “the subset of the topic concerning how you ought to act that concerns things that really matter”? Is one definition better or worse, or closer to your own definition of morality? Is the counterargument to one different from the counterargument to the other? Couldn’t “the line between prudence and morality” be subjective while the spectrum itself is objective? Is your goal to reject question the line, or to question the things contained in the set that the line demarcates?

My reason for thinking what I do:

You can’t give an objective criteria for determining morality. All you’ve given are subjective criteria (preferences, desires, utility).
You can’t give an objective criteria for what matters. You’ve given subjective criteria (you are a physiological creature with certain basic needs, wants and desires).

If what matters is based on what I want or what I desire, then it’s subjective.
If what’s moral is based on my preferences and desires, then it’s subjective.

If you can’t give a non-subjective basis for these things, I can only conclude that not even you believe in objective morality.

That was kinda MY point. That was the point I’m making. Moral oughts and prudent oughts (the batman is a prudent one) are NOT the same thing. That’s been my point since post 1 or post 2.

I wasn’t trying to gain ground for my case, I was actually trying to help him gain ground for his. He refused to refine his definition…his loss.

Yes, there are different relevant counter-arguments. When it’s about things that really matter, a counter-argument is that things that really matter are subjective. When it’s the entire topic of oughts, a counter-argument is oughts like “you ought to see batman” – if that’s not a moral statement, then clearly morality doesn’t encompass the entire topic of oughts.

And I can’t see how the spectrum would be objective at all. The statement, “The spectrum is objective while the line is subjective” essentially means that everyone has the same ranking of importance for all things, but some people place “really important” at a different place on the spectrum than other people.
However, it’s doubtful that everyone has the same ranking of importance as well (well, it’s pretty much patently false), so the spectrum is as subjective as the line.

They wouldn’t be objective. That’s just like saying, “if morality is subjective, then how is it not subjective?”. And clearly, I’ve said nothing like that. Morality is objective in the sense that you can be mistaken about the value of what you happen to value.

Yes, that statement is tautological. What moral theories do is attempt to give it a content.
E.g.,
“You ought to do X because it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain” Or,
“You ought to do X because it can consistently be willed as a universal maxim for all people” Or,
“You ought to do X because it exhibits some relevant virtue” Or etc…

That’s the job of moral theorizing, which was not the purpose of this debate, and doesn’t affect anything to do with my arguments…

Now I’m wondering if you even read my arguments… because they hold no matter what content you give morality. But in the process we’ve given it a bit of content. Pain is bad. If you say pain is good for no other reason than that it’s painful—you’re incoherent, and that needs to be explained. I’ve refuted the case of masochists, for whom pain is a means to greater psychological pleasure. As usual, you’ve said nothing. I was explicit at the beginning that this is not a debate about which moral theory is best----that was the point of the Sufi myth.

Dude, you keep on insisting that value is objective, just insisting and insisting and insisting. Why is value objective?

The examples you’ve given, if I’m remembering correctly, have been along the lines of, “A person thinks he values such-and-such, but if he followed that value, it would conflict with his other values. Therefore his valuing of such-and-such is objectively wrong.” The problem with that is that the values that are conflicting with the value in question are also subjective. They just happen to be valued stronger by him. So, it’s not exactly correct to say “He’s objectively wrong about his value,” but rather, “His subjective values that are in conflict with his other value are stronger – he thinks he values X, but following value X would conflict with values Z and Y, which are more dear to him, so he would be correct to avoid following value X.” I would agree with that last statement. But, again, it’s determined by his subjective valuations of X, Z and Y. So sure, there’s a correct answer of what he ‘should’ do, but that correct answer is completely determined by subjective values.

So, again, why is value objective? If your only argument is going to be, “Because someone can be wrong because one value can conflict with his other values,” that’s not a satisfactory solution. People can have conflicting subjective values. So please avoid giving an argument of that form again. It’s not good enough.

READ. THE. ARGUMENTS. in my very first post.

Nah, that’s just wrong. I clearly haven’t said that. You need to go back to my first post. I don’t think it should be my job to repeat the arguments.

There are 5 or 6 arguments in my very first post all to roughly the conclusion that it’s more plausible to think morality is objective, (or a conclusion very close to that). Not only have you not responded to them, now you are just asking me to repeat to you what they are. Sorry, but that’s not the level I’d like to debate on. The good news is they’re still there for you to look at.

I am a river to my people.

Wow, again. First we were talking about if what matters is objective, and then you referred to your poor arguments on why morality is objective.
Now we’re talking about value, and you again refer to your arguments on morality.

I’m not talking about morality at this very point in time, I’m talking about value.
The only value you’ve argued for as objective is that pain is disvaluable. Apart from that, you’ve not made any argument for the objectivity of value. So, even if pain were objectively disvaluable, that disvaluation only applies to actions that hurt the actor himself (since the actor is choosing actions based on his own values, and only his own pain is inherently disvaluable to him – he may still value the pain of others).

Furthermore, even if pain is intrinsically disvaluable, the amount of disvaluation is not necessarily the same person-to-person. One person may REALLY hate being in pain, while another doesn’t mind so much. Different thresholds, different tolerances, etc. So, it can be intrinsically negative, but the degree may still be subjective.

So, if we assume that pain is intrinsically bad, that badness only applies to a very limited scope – to actions that hurt the actor himself – and even then, actions that hurt the actor himself may still have positive expected value, in the ways that you described – they have other ways of pleasure, even though they also have to endure pain.

But you’re not arguing that just pain has intrinsic negative value, you’re arguing that ALL values are objective. So…where’s the rest of the arguments? Even if we agree in the specific case of pain (and even then, only pain for the actor himself – he need not disvalue the pain of others), you’ve not given anything else to support the more general claim. I’ve actually searched the entire thread for “value” and looked at every occurrence of it, and I’ve not found these arguments you’re saying you’ve made for objective value, apart from pain.

Wake up. They are the same question. It’s like saying, “No, you idiot, I was talking about water, not H20!”. This should be obvious to you. Hopefully, it’ll seem like one of those Freudian slips where you think afterwards, “Fuck, what was I talking about?!”

That’s from the very first post. If what matters most is objective, then morality is. And vice versa. And what matters just is what’s valuable. And what’s valuable just is what matters. It’s like you’re trying to say something like, “No, you idiot, I was talking about what’s valuable----and what’s valuable might not matter!”

It’d be funny… if it wasn’t just fucking annoying. Anyways, sorting out this confusion should deal with everything you wrote below it.

Oh, so it’s all circular. I see.

I haven’t seen a demonstration on how what’s valuable or what matters is objective, apart from pain (and even that has some subjectivity not yet explained away). You just keep insisting.

Circular? You mean like thinking of water as H20 is circular?

Please, read my last post again. If I give you good reason to think there’s water on some planet, I’ve given you good reason to think there’s H20 on some planet. Are you saying that what matters isn’t valuable? Or are you saying that my definition of morality as including what matters is wrong?

Wake up. Stop repeating your confusions as if they wouldn’t be wrong until you stopped repeating them.

I’m stating that you haven’t proven that what matters or what is valuable is objective, other than the potential case that pain is intrinsically of negative value (though how much negative value is still apparently subjective). You keep on reading really strange things into my posts.

Now, I’ve looked for the arguments you’ve said you’ve made for the objectivity of values and what matters, and I’m sorry to say I didn’t find them. If you really have made them before, then please do me the favor of just copying and pasting them into your next post.

THEY. ARE. THE. SAME. THING.

If morality is objective, then what matters is objective (that’s an analytic truth given how I defined morality). AND WHAT MATTERS = WHAT’S VALUABLE… the same way water = H20

I think it’s time for Carleas to put you out of your misery and close the debate.

I don’t really care that they’re the same thing, that’s fine. I didn’t say anything to the contrary last post. I don’t know why you’re so hung up on that. Fine, they’re the same. Now copy-pasta for the love of god.

Besides, I don’t know why it’s “my misery”. Carleas said that I won, basically. Do you mean put you out of your misery?

If morality is objective, then what matters is objective (that’s an analytic truth given how I defined morality). AND WHAT MATTERS = WHAT’S VALUABLE… the same way water = H20.

My arguments give you good reason to think morality is objective. And you’re smart enough to know what follows from that, analytically (cough cough that value is objective).

You have not responded to the arguments. They’re still there in the first post. Do yourself a favor…

Your arguments you already presented involved a whole slew of nonsequiturs, misapplying occam’s razor, begging the question, etc. And they resulted in Carleas thinking you’d lost the debate. I think it’s fair to say that either they weren’t good enough, or they were just poorly presented. Give me what you think is the strongest one, but this time make it for value specifically instead of morality. If morality being objective means value is objective, surely you can transform the argument quite easily.

You haven’t given a single reason to think there’s the slightest thing wrong with any of the arguments. It’s been 3 pages now. I can go and call a tree a non-sequitur… it doesn’t change the fact that without a reason to think so, it’s quite bullshit. Do you read what I say at all—about how your, “no tell me about what matters, not morality” or “yea morality (what matters) might be objective, but psh, value isn’t!” …have you been grasping why that’s ridonkulous at all? I don’t need to transform anything at all, just because you object to defining a bachelor as an unmarried male—or had no idea that one was a different way of speaking about the other. You can go and do that yourself, if you want. It’s in my very first post… now would be a good time to not be lazy, and read it.

Well, seeing as you already gave those arguments and lost with them, and are unwilling to try presenting anything new, I feel pretty safe just resting on the victory I already had.

Now, if you want to single out one of the arguments that you think is particularly strong (you don’t want me to single it out – I’ll choose the weakest one, so I’m giving you the opportunity to make your case as strong as possible), and try reformulating it to prove objective values instead of morality (which should be easy if they’re equivalent as you say), I will respond to it. If not, I’ll just pick out the most obviously erroneous argument and show what’s wrong with it.

Do you want to leave it up to me? Is that really the path you want to take?

Let me ask you this: Are you denying that you gave no reason to think there was anything wrong with any of the arguments I highlighted in blue, and did no more than state a disagreement with some premise, just in a one-liner? I thought we agreed on that, when we agreed you were lazy. I mean, that only makes sense—because now you’re asking me to pick one argument, so that you don’t have to respond to all 5 or 6. You wouldn’t ask that if you had done anything more than what’s obvious that you did do—a one liner just letting everyone know that you are taking some opposed position in the debate… (as if that was a surprise).

If there’s some reason to think the premise false, it needs to be layed out. I think I’ve said plenty to render the premises initially plausible. What Carleas said is tantamount to saying that one person had a better case, but was also the person who lost. That should strike you as incoherent. Particularly if you’re not denying anything above, which I take it that you’re not, by asking me to repeat an first post.

Why don’t you get off your ass and respond to the argument that you think is weakest. That’s what I’d prefer… some sort of challenge, at all.

(And it’s about fucking time that you should feel the need to respond to an actual argument)