objective morality

[apeman]

Here's my take on the objectivity of morality.

If morality is objective , ie, built into the fabric of the world around us (rather than just in our minds), then it is necessary that the world around us is the product of a greater mind.

It seems that since this world is ordered and that there is no evidence of order without will, then there is good reason for supposing that we exist in the product of a mind and that therefore the product has morality built into it.

 

[Bronzeage]

Here's my take on the objectivity of morality.

If morality is objective , ie, built into the fabric of the world around us (rather than just in our minds), then it is necessary that the world around us is the product of a greater mind.

It seems that since this world is ordered and that there is no evidence of order without will, then there is good reason for supposing that we exist in the product of a mind and that therefore the product has morality built into it.

Or perhaps, since the human species faces the same challenges to existence, everywhere in the world, the solutions to those challenges will be similar, across the world.

 

[Bomb#20]

Here's my take on the objectivity of morality.

If morality is objective , ie, built into the fabric of the world around us (rather than just in our minds), then it is necessary that the world around us is the product of a greater mind.

What makes you think objectivity requires that a thing be built into the fabric of the world around us rather than just in our minds? Schizophrenia is not built into the fabric of the world around us. It's just in some of our minds. Do you think that means it isn't objective? Do you think whether Mary Todd Lincoln had schizophrenia or not is a matter of personal taste?

 

[blastula]

Schizophrenia is biological, not just a mental concept. Normative morality may only be a mental concept.

However, the rest of his argument is unfounded.

 

[arkirk]

Everybody does not face the same challenges..definitely not everywhere

Here's my take on the objectivity of morality.

If morality is objective , ie, built into the fabric of the world around us (rather than just in our minds), then it is necessary that the world around us is the product of a greater mind.

It seems that since this world is ordered and that there is no evidence of order without will, then there is good reason for supposing that we exist in the product of a mind and that therefore the product has morality built into it.

Or perhaps, since the human species faces the same challenges to existence, everywhere in the world, the solutions to those challenges will be similar, across the world.

Objective morality is an old hackneyed idea that needs to be put to bed. If this world is the product of a "greater mind" then greater minds must be screwed up! We can decide we have a little empathy or we can turn it off...like so many people have done and made this world so dog eat dog, To imagine we all face the same problems is absurd.

 

[Bronzeage]

Or perhaps, since the human species faces the same challenges to existence, everywhere in the world, the solutions to those challenges will be similar, across the world.

Objective morality is an old hackneyed idea that needs to be put to bed. If this world is the product of a "greater mind" then greater minds must be screwed up! We can decide we have a little empathy or we can turn it off...like so many people have done and made this world so dog eat dog, To imagine we all face the same problems is absurd.

You make it sound as if you have discovered a unique way to keep from being hungry and staying dry when it rains. Please tell what how you do this.

 

[Bomb#20]

Schizophrenia is biological, not just a mental concept. Normative morality may only be a mental concept.

However, the rest of his argument is unfounded.

That part of his argument is just as unfounded as the rest. It relies on the premise that something has to not be just in our minds in order to be objective -- a premise that I've shown is incorrect. Of course you might possibly have a different argument for minds-only morality not being objective, but that won't save any of apeman's argument.

But never mind apeman. Do you have an argument for minds-only morality not being objective? "may only be a mental concept" isn't going to cut it. After all, supernovas may only be a mental concept and not physical -- for all we know, the whole universe may be something that was created last Tuesday, with all our memories preinstalled and all the light supposedly on its way here from the Crab Nebula preinstalled too. So do you think a "may" is enough to imply that supernovas are subjective? "May"s are a dime a dozen. If you're trying to construct an argument against minds-only morality being objective, then you'll need to start by showing normative morality is not biological.

 

[apeman]

Or perhaps, since the human species faces the same challenges to existence, everywhere in the world, the solutions to those challenges will be similar, across the world.

I disagree, societies have many differing ways of dealing with the same problems, also societies have differing ideas over what constitutes a problem...for instance some societies value all individuals as equal in value (in terms of basic rights) whilst others do not.

Without objective truth we can not say that one idea is superior to the other since both ideas have been successful.

 

[apeman]

What makes you think objectivity requires that a thing be built into the fabric of the world around us rather than just in our minds? Schizophrenia is not built into the fabric of the world around us. It's just in some of our minds. Do you think that means it isn't objective? Do you think whether Mary Todd Lincoln had schizophrenia or not is a matter of personal taste?

For an idea to be objective it has to be a fact contained within the world ...not just our opinion.That's why it is necessary for the world to be the product of will in order for objective morality to exist.

Your point about the illness schizophrenia misses the point since I believe that such a disease is a proven fact but that the ideas the schizophrenic has are probably not objectively true ideas about the world.

 

[apeman]

Schizophrenia is biological, not just a mental concept. Normative morality may only be a mental concept.

However, the rest of his argument is unfounded.

I think it is pretty well founded that you will be more creative before a lobotomy than after.

 

[apeman]

Schizophrenia is biological, not just a mental concept. Normative morality may only be a mental concept.

However, the rest of his argument is unfounded.

That part of his argument is just as unfounded as the rest. It relies on the premise that something has to not be just in our minds in order to be objective -- a premise that I've shown is incorrect. Of course you might possibly have a different argument for minds-only morality not being objective, but that won't save any of apeman's argument.

But never mind apeman. Do you have an argument for minds-only morality not being objective? "may only be a mental concept" isn't going to cut it. After all, supernovas may only be a mental concept and not physical -- for all we know, the whole universe may be something that was created last Tuesday, with all our memories preinstalled and all the light supposedly on its way here from the Crab Nebula preinstalled too. So do you think a "may" is enough to imply that supernovas are subjective? "May"s are a dime a dozen. If you're trying to construct an argument against minds-only morality being objective, then you'll need to start by showing normative morality is not biological.

Our ideas about the world around us may be true or false, they may be objective or delusional. For morality to be objective we need to be able to measure its truth against a set standard, not something transitory like our opinions.

If we wish to know about supernovas we need to study real ones, not our opinions about what they may be.

 

[Bronzeage]

Or perhaps, since the human species faces the same challenges to existence, everywhere in the world, the solutions to those challenges will be similar, across the world.

I disagree, societies have many differing ways of dealing with the same problems, also societies have differing ideas over what constitutes a problem...for instance some societies value all individuals as equal in value (in terms of basic rights) whilst others do not.

Without objective truth we can not say that one idea is superior to the other since both ideas have been successful.

What you call "differing ways" are only small degrees. The first moral rule in any society is, "Don't kill your friends." After that, it's a long discussion about who is a friend. The second rule is, "Don't steal your friend's stuff." After that, it's a long discussion about what constitutes "stuff". Both of these rules make it possible for us to live in cooperative groups. The environment and climate are the greatest factors in the details of how we define friend and stuff. There is no objective truth to be cited. We do this in order to survive.

 

[fromderinside]

What you call "differing ways" are only small degrees. The first moral rule in any society is, "Don't kill your friends." After that, it's a long discussion about who is a friend. The second rule is, "Don't steal your friend's stuff." After that, it's a long discussion about what constitutes "stuff". Both of these rules make it possible for us to live in cooperative groups. The environment and climate are the greatest factors in the details of how we define friend and stuff. There is no objective truth to be cited. We do this in order to survive.

I think your first and second rules are pretty far down any moral scale for societies. For instance my understanding is the first moral rule is families extend to groups, so we agree we are us because there are bad guys out there. The second is act to protect us against them, followed by define what is meant by us, followed by how should we operate which is where your rules come into play.

 

[Bronzeage]

What you call "differing ways" are only small degrees. The first moral rule in any society is, "Don't kill your friends." After that, it's a long discussion about who is a friend. The second rule is, "Don't steal your friend's stuff." After that, it's a long discussion about what constitutes "stuff". Both of these rules make it possible for us to live in cooperative groups. The environment and climate are the greatest factors in the details of how we define friend and stuff. There is no objective truth to be cited. We do this in order to survive.

I think your first and second rules are pretty far down any moral scale for societies. For instance my understanding is the first moral rule is families extend to groups, so we agree we are us because there are bad guys out there. The second is act to protect us against them, followed by define what is meant by us, followed by how should we operate which is where your rules come into play.

You have the priorities in wrong order. The key to understanding morality is to consider a human being as a wild animal. Alone and naked in any environment on this planet, he is helpless with his short flat teeth, soft claws, eyes that are nearly useless in the dark, and a sense of smell that's not good for much more than smelling himself. A human must exist in a group to survive. The critical need becomes a social system which allows a group of humans to live in close proximity without killing each other, and maintaining relationships which permit cooperation. It was quite some time before human groups had to worry about "bad guys out there." A more immediate danger was the bad cats, bears, and canines. The more severe the environment, the more critical cooperation becomes. When humans need clothing and shelter to survive the night, it becomes a specialty which one person performs, while others work to provide food. The hunter cannot come home with a hunk of meat, throw it on the fire and say, "This is mine. I killed it and you can't have any."

We must have our "do not kill your friends" rule, or we never have the "who is my friend?" discussion. If we do not have our "do not steal your friend's stuff," rule, people cannot trust others when their back is turned. Without trust, there is no cooperation. Without cooperation, we are naked and alone.

This cooperation has allowed us to create very large groups of friends, which have circles within circles, each with their own rank within the group. We accumulate stuff, generation after generation. This creates a need for more and more complicated layers of "do not kill your friends," and "don't steal your friend's stuff," but it all still comes down to the original two rules. Some people cloak the rules in religious commands, but every society has faced the same problems of survival and every society has used cooperation to survive.

 

[Staircaseghost]

Here's my take on the objectivity of morality.

If morality is objective , ie, built into the fabric of the world around us (rather than just in our minds), then it is necessary that the world around us is the product of a greater mind.

What makes you think objectivity requires that a thing be built into the fabric of the world around us rather than just in our minds? Schizophrenia is not built into the fabric of the world around us.

As far as I can tell, my best empirical models include the diagnosis of schizophrenia as highly predictive of certain future observations, given past observations, so it is as built in to the fabric of the world as any other bit of ontology at the level of macroscopic description.

1) It is an objective fact about Smith's mind that he prefers wine to beer.
2) It is an objective fact about Smith's mind that he values having $3 less than he values having a gallon of gasoline in his car.
3) It is an objective fact about Smith's mind that he has symptoms of schizophrenia.

1') It is an objective fact that Smith says, "wine is better than beer."
2') It is an objective fact that Smith says, "gas is worth at least $3."
3') It is an objective fact that Smith says, "the CIA is sending me messages through my dental work."

1'') It is not an objective fact whether or not wine is better than beer.
2'') It is not an objective fact that gasoline has more than or less than $3 worth of labor-value "stored up" in it.
3'') But there is, in fact, an objective fact of the matter about whether or not there is information transfer from a certain government agency to a certain person's mouth.

One of these things is not like the other. When a realist disagrees with an antirealist over the mind-dependence of, say, monetary value, they are disagreeing over the truth of sentences like 2'', not 2 or 2'.

There is the (philosophically) trivial or banal claim that cars are dependent on minds, since cars are causally consequent on beings with minds. But it would be highly non-trivial -- indeed, it would be earth-shattering -- to learn that cars depend on minds in the sense that whether or not the sentence "cars exist" was true depended on whether the speaker believed in cars, or had a negative attitude towards cars. Just as it would be highly non-trivial to learn (as a current of 20th century thought around such figures as Foucault and Szasz actually once asserted!) that schizophrenia qua medical diagnosis is culturally relative, and simply a way of society's elites to delegitimize alternate ways of thinking by calling it a "sickness".

 

[Keith&Co.]

It seems that since this world is ordered and that there is no evidence of order without will, then there is good reason for supposing that we exist in the product of a mind and that therefore the product has morality built into it.

That's a huge leap. Even if order does imply will, why is it that you assume the will that directed an orderly universe also embedded morality into the product? It's not possible that a god who likes physical order doesn't give a rat's ass for social order? OR values free will such that he allows his creations to fashion their own morality?
How do you logically leap from 'order exists in the universe' to 'morality is not a human invention?'

 

[Keith&Co.]

History always makes me wonder about objective morality.

In the US, we keep extending civil rights to more and more people.
Gave blacks the vote; decided women have a right to say no to sex, even if they're married; we're giving gays the right to marital strife.

As society's morals change, are we moving towards or away from the alleged objective moral standard?


How do we tell?

 

[Bronzeage]

History always makes me wonder about objective morality.

In the US, we keep extending civil rights to more and more people.
Gave blacks the vote; decided women have a right to say no to sex, even if they're married; we're giving gays the right to marital strife.

As society's morals change, are we moving towards or away from the alleged objective moral standard?


How do we tell?

It is an observable phenomena, the larger the group, the broader the criteria we must use for moral standards. In order to have cooperation, there must be a perception of consistency in moral standards. This is usually labeled as "fairness," but that word isn't the best choice. There is not really anything fair about a moral code. It is simply expedient, but it must be seen as consistent.

When groups merge and melt into one another, generations of conflicting moral codes must also be merged. We can't have one neighborhood where it's permissible to beat a disobedient wife and a few blocks away, it's considered felonious assault. We learn what is really important to maintain cooperation is society and let go of the moral strictures which no longer serve their purpose.

The idea there is a universal objective morality has real appeal. One will notice, objective morality is always the the lowest common denominator of moral codes. I don't think anyone claims objective morality can dictate how many wives a man may have, or something equally specific.

It always comes back to the same old, "Don't kill your friends," and "Don't steal your friend's stuff," or, as Bill and Ted said, "Be excellent to one another."

If we did not base all our moral codes on these simplest of rules, there would not be anyone of us around to discuss the subject.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The idea there is a universal objective morality has real appeal. One will notice, objective morality is always the the lowest common denominator of moral codes. I don't think anyone claims objective morality can dictate how many wives a man may have, or something equally specific.

But that's my point.
How do we detect objective moral codes? How can we discriminate between our own opinion, even if it's universal to the species, and an objective moral?
Can someone who supports objective morality tell me how do we decide if gay rights is on the objective list or not?
That would be a really big boon to people on both sides of the argument, if we could show that, hey, the UNIVERSE feels that gays should/should not have the right to marry. Or if abortion is a right, by the standards of the universe, or a crime.
Or the number of wives.
it would simplify the fight, for any argument that goes for/against an actual objective moral.

Lots of people tell me that objective morals exist, and even tell me what some of them are, but i never get a complete list or a way to test any moral against the list.

 

[Bronzeage]

The idea there is a universal objective morality has real appeal. One will notice, objective morality is always the the lowest common denominator of moral codes. I don't think anyone claims objective morality can dictate how many wives a man may have, or something equally specific.

But that's my point.
How do we detect objective moral codes? How can we discriminate between our own opinion, even if it's universal to the species, and an objective moral?
Can someone who supports objective morality tell me how do we decide if gay rights is on the objective list or not?
That would be a really big boon to people on both sides of the argument, if we could show that, hey, the UNIVERSE feels that gays should/should not have the right to marry. Or if abortion is a right, by the standards of the universe, or a crime.
Or the number of wives.
it would simplify the fight, for any argument that goes for/against an actual objective moral.

Lots of people tell me that objective morals exist, and even tell me what some of them are, but i never get a complete list or a way to test any moral against the list.

From Alice in Wonderland,

'If there's no meaning in it,' said the King, 'that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any.

We will never find an objective moral imperative for the simple reason none exist. There is no possible human action which cannot be moral in one situation and immoral in another. It is wrong to kill at sometimes, and at other times, it is the best possible thing to do.

Why is this? The simple answer is, "Life is complicated." The simpler the rules are, the better we understand them. One of the things I learned when I went into management and it suddenly became my problem to set and enforce policy, was that the more specific a rule, the easier it was to evade. Every restriction creates it's own exclusions, if only because specifics imply that whatever is not mentioned, is allowable.