Is Morality Objective?

From elsewhere:

I read your opening post and FJ’s first post. I doubt there is really much to say about it because it seems too far from my beliefs on the subject of morality. It seems that you and FJ, despite your differences in opinion, started the debate with quite a few fundamental agreements on the subject of morality in general. I’ve been know, for the sake of argument, to refer to morality as relative or subjective, but honestly I don’t even recognize the validity of the term. I didn’t completely understand your opening post, but perhaps it was sufficient for proving morality is objective, assuming it even exists.

Not to make the assumption that this is even an argument you want to get into, but assuming at one time or another it is, I think we’d have to start with an argument on the very existence of objective truths in general. This is a thread on nihilism I made ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 1&t=181472.

It is taking the subject of subjectivity farther than I would wish to go here, where I’m only advocating the lack of belief in objectivity not that one nihilate all their subjective beliefs, but in it you can see where I’m coming from. I’d like at least for you, sometime, to answer these two questions; have you ever thought about a subject, concept, idea, etc. so long that it lost all meaning? And, whether or not you did, would you argue that the meaninglessness this over thinking gives to ideas, etc. is just a psychological illusion or could you think of some other argument? It seems to me this is proof of the meaninglessness of truth, but I wonder how you can refute that.

   Stuart, I would think, the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of truths as defined by the lack of substance/value they contain have nothing to do with each other. Purely formal substantive ideas, and "truth" being the idea within your own example, even if TRUTH is nowhere to be found, It still has a possibility, acting as a reservoir for subjective opinions.(As to truth).  That said, within a given context 2 people agree on a certain singular definitive value of what that truth is, it gains more objectivity.  This implies that absolute objectivity may not even be possible in the same mode, as we were to inquire into the absolute value of "truth". The problem with this type of argument in my opinion, is that we treat objective morality as it were questions of right and wrong on the same plane.  There are many sub groups under truth, and seeking the absolute truth is kind of a truism, or ideas based on less generalization.  This is where the dichotomy between objective and subjective breaks down, and this is the point where Nietzche tries to dilute the problem with purely objective morality.

It seems to me the main proposal here, VRs, is Objective based on subjective criteria.

We use subjective experiences as the axioms, then try to maximize the good ones and minimize the bad ones.

It’s an objective morality given subjective metrics.

It is not claiming that stars and meteors and alien civilizations or bacteria should also think that what is good for homo sapiens is objectively good.

Yea, perhaps. The important distinction is between “subjectivity” and “subject-dependence”. Morality is subject-dependent, but not subjective. So, what’s the diff?

Analogy: It takes a subject to have physical health. (Physical health is subject-dependent). But whether or not something (e.g., drinking paint) is good for your physical health is not subjective (i.e., it’s not a matter of your opinion).

Morality is subject-dependent—there’d be no way you ought to act without a subject who can act. But morality is not subjective—how you ought to act is not always a matter of your opinion.

Mine was poorly worded. The scale is based on measuring subjective experiences - to a large degree. But from there the metrics are objective.

Yea, if “subjective experiences” = “experiences that a subject can have”

Affirmative opening statement was way too long.

It could have been condensed to the morality-strategy conflation. If morals are subjective, then there’s no difference between how one ought to live properly versus how one ought to live successfully. The very reference to morality would be irrelevant.

If I wanted what I said to be unsupported and incoherent, I would surely have condensed it to whatever you just tried to say…

It’s pretty simple.

First, you acknowledge that morality and strategy are different ideas.

Then, you ask, “What’s the difference?”

If morality is subjective, then strategy accounts for it which is defined by the subjective goals it pursues such that morality is unnecessary.

Therefore, morality must not be subjective in order to remain important.

Daktoria, I agree in a sense. But, it’s not even a question of strategy and “morality” being different. “Morality” is still “important” for most, despite its complete and utter subjectivity, not because of any agreement on the issues, but because for the majority of individuals, they come to the conclusion that thinking in terms of and applying their personal (what else could it be but personal) definition of the word “morality”, whatever relation it has to the words root meanings. I have a sense of the word “morality” that I use, it’s important to me because I grew up with the term, I can’t just get rid of all of its meaning.

Now I like to distinguish between discussions on the subjectivity of the word “morality”, which I’m doing here, and discussions on “moral” issues, which I have done on other threads.

In a discussion on “moral” issues the term “moral” doesn’t necessarily need to be in quotation marks, just like the word “word” doesn’t need to be in quotation marks, because then we wouldn’t be discussing the term, but the issues. Nonetheless, I think a productive discussion (that is for me, I let others worry about its productivity themselves) is one where a general outcome is “agreed” upon as being “good” before discussing how to accomplish it, all the while the term “morality” having no place.

Obe, Moreno and von Rivers despite the differences of opinions you have I think you all seem to be claiming that objectivity exists through two or more subjects being in agreement. That goes back to my original question:

To expand on the question within the context of agreement, I only need to change the wording somewhat:

Have you ever discussed with someone a subject, concept, idea, etc. and felt you both came to an agreement then found out in practice you both never agreed on anything? And, whether or not you did, would you argue that the meaninglessness the application of practice to discussion may show is just a psychological illusion or could you think of some other argument?

I don’t think two people ever agree on anything to a greater extent than to end the discussion amicably or for within the context of the agreement, notwithstanding unexpected events (which may be about as likely to happen as not), to not step on each other’s toes.

This illusion of objectivity within one’s ideas, or within an “agreement with others” I would say just comes down to not “pushing the issues far enough”. I’ve always pushed the issues, but it took me over twenty years of such an inner search for truth, or coherency, of any idea, and an outer search for consistency among any two people to be able to confidentially say that objectivity has no meaning.

This kind of search is not recommended, it may have a “good” effect on those around you, being that it might make you less hypocritical (that is it might), but it is of no use to one’s self.

Just to be clear, I sometimes try to work from what I consider to be Von River’s position, making arguments and clarifications, as if it was the case.

I think his position is immediately confusing when it is saying that morality is objective or seems to say this. What he is referring to as morality, which it will serve as a guide to actions, is not really what most people mean by morality, which includes things like being good, even if one is not performing an action. He is expanding prudence, or effectiveness, to include what has been covered in morality, so that morality can be worked out by things like scientific empiricism, for example.

IOW he is coupling say, Goodness, with organism homeostasis. Which really means, to me, that it is a small ‘g’, rather than the big G.

He may not agree with all this, but I find it interesting, and think this is a defensible position which I play around within, sometimes with a little mocking, but mostly not.

Sure.

Yes, to the first part. Communication is fallible. I think people tend to be naively optimistic about the application of abstract ideas and how well people’s ideas actually match, despite the same language. Also I think there are very entangled issues when one tries to separate out abstraction from application, and often people convince themselves they believe certain things, but once application comes into play, they clearly do not believe them, despite continued insistence they do.

There are ego beliefs. Which are similar to ego ideas about oneself, but include beliefs about ‘external things’ and beliefs about what one’s beliefs are.
Then there is in the unconscious, which has a mass of beliefs people are often completely unaware, but in fact may be clearer guidelines for others to who the person is and what they are going to do or how it will feel to be around them.

I don’t think people change each other’s minds that much, but I do think people can, in fact, agree, and sometimes even if their words are not aligned. They may not even realize they agree.

WEll, agreement and objectivity are not the same thing. But in practical terms it would be a problem if no one really agreed. AS far as I can tell, however, there are groups out there, and they share beliefs in common, and if their beliefs take over a physical area - a corporation, a school, a family, a gathering, etc. - one can make direct predictions about what it will be like and what changes will take place there. Good predictions. And that these shifts matter. At least to me.

This kind of search is not recommended, it may have a “good” effect on those around you, being that it might make you less hypocritical (that is it might), but it is of no use to one’s self.
[/quote]

No, that’s not what vR claims. He says objectivity does not depend on agreement. Two, a billion, all people can agree … they may all just be wrong.

The agreement of two, yes, I honestly only “intuited” it, and after refreshing on Husserl, found that is his requirement–for the “intentional act” based on intuition. Honestly, this comes at complete surprise, that I intuited it, withiut prior exposure, and then finding this process intiuted by Dilthey and Bergson.
I will look his exact use of this. You may be kidding, but it is a sort of a confirmation to go on.

It’s actually Heidgeer’s “mitsein” or–being together, and the objection to that was that they are not objective, because the objection that the “mitsein” does not go beyond solipsism- from sarte’s interpretation of “Zein und Zeit”.

Read about 8 posts, and they all seems extremely vague, and they both seems glaringly ignorent about how moral are a very relative and sujective, which will greatly variate from country to country, from person to person, to implement deeper psychology such as sheeple and such.
What we seems as highly moral in 1 country may be grossly abominable in another. Such as stoning, honor killing, US and guns vs EU and sex.

Quality of debate is 2/10.

 Drusuz:  there is an argumentativeness here which may be missed.  The rightness or wrongness of a moral code, agreed upon by as few as two people, may have no  appearant bearing on the wider question of rightness or wrongness of such a code. Objective morality is only a statement of perceived facts, and not an evaluation of how those facts bear upon a morality.  One can extend the moral code within a wider scope of moral evaluation, but that's optional.  

For instance, once upon a time in the Wild west, horse thievery resulted in summary execution was practice routinely, without recourse to any form of due process of law. This was an example of an implicit agreement of so called objective morality.

The subject needed no more elaboration or justification.

No, i must highly disagree with you.

2 people are ample people if they actually knew what they talked about, which they seemingly don’t. Sure they want to discuss the topic in a serious manner, but they both fall short of really defining it.
What you too miss, is the understanding of circumstances in your own anology.

Drusuz,

Apparently you have not studied the topic as I have, and are not as knowledgable about the topic as I am. Have you come here for cozy chatter? I have not come here for your cozy chatter. I am a philosophical genius. Please read through my posts and focus your attention, so that you may learn, and not remain in ignorance.

Thanks mr huge mass of flowing water, for the slap in the face and motivation to do better in this thread.

If you are a genious, then what am i? Super philosophical genious?
My critique of the Academy was way better, much sharper and to the point. You have yet to surpass me in philosophy.

You are welcome. I am a river to those who help themselves, so please, draw from my superior wisdom on display in my debate, for your own benefit.

I am a river to those who help themselves.