objective morality

[apeman]

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.

I think that you are conflating morality with self interest...we all know that the highest description of a moral act is that it is a brave one. A brave act requires that a member of the group willingly puts his life on the line for the group even though he wishes to live. Chesterton nailed it with...."Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die.". Self interest can not be the foundation of morality...it is only one of its drivers.

 

[apeman]

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?'

A God that constructs such an interesting place to exist is hardly likely to create beings that should desire to destroy it. If He exists it is logical to assume He believes that we should carry on His creative works...including His moral works (all his works involve order).He wouldn't create a tool to work against Himself would He?

 

[PyramidHead]

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?'

A God that constructs such an interesting place to exist is hardly likely to create beings that should desire to destroy it. If He exists it is logical to assume He believes that we should carry on His creative works...including His moral works (all his works involve order).He wouldn't create a tool to work against Himself would He?

That's a boatload of assumptions without any justification. Keith's original point still stands: without knowing anything about this 'will' that directed an orderly universe, there is no reason to think it has anything to do with how humans should behave. Obviously, you're referring to God and using a capitalized male pronoun to talk about it, so you probably think you know enough about God to draw such conclusions. The problem is that nobody else accepts those premises, because there is no God. We can speculate about some kind of 'will' if you want, but you don't get to smuggle in your preferred notion of what that means and call it settled.

 

[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 that you are conflating morality with self interest...we all know that the highest description of a moral act is that it is a brave one. A brave act requires that a member of the group willingly puts his life on the line for the group even though he wishes to live. Chesterton nailed it with...."Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die.". Self interest can not be the foundation of morality...it is only one of its drivers.

Why do you find morality and self interest to be in conflict? People kill themselves all the time. Every once in a while we elevate this act to be something heroic.

If bravery were the result of a universal objective morality, it would be much more common. One of the stranger aspects of individual humans is their self perception, which includes what we believe to t others perceive about us. This constitutes our self worth. In some cases, our perceived self worth is so great, we will sacrifice ourselves in return for the comfort of knowing others will think well of us for it.

Self interest is the foundation of morality. There can be no other, because there is no other means of survival. We cannot survive as a self, only as a group of selves. Self interest dictates we coexist and cooperate.

 

[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.

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.

"Independence of mind" is simply part of the definition of "objective" in this context. What definition of "objective" are you using?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Sure. But since our minds are contained within the world, it's perfectly possible for a thing to be just in our minds at the same time facts about that thing are contained within the world.

That's why it is necessary for the world to be the product of will in order for objective morality to exist.

How do you figure that follows? You might as well claim it is necessary for the world to be the product of fermentation in order for objective rocks to exist. What does being the product of will have to do with objective morality?

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.

Huh? So who said the schizophrenic's ideas are true? (1) Such a disease is a proven fact; (2) the disease exists just in our minds -- it is after all a mental illness, not a gall bladder illness; therefore (3) existing just in our minds does not conflict with being a proven fact; therefore (4) your use of a thing not being "just in our minds" as your criterion for objectivity was an error. Q.E.D.

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.

So how would the world being the product of a greater mind help? What set standard does the greater mind measure moral claims against in order to discover whether they are objective truth? Does he/she likewise need to be the product of an even greater mind? Or is the greater mind perhaps simply measuring moral claims against his/her own opinions, opinions you choose to label "objective truth"?

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

So where do gods find real moral truths to study, so that they are able to know about moral truths by having studied real ones?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

A human ought not to rape another human for fun. But you're saying there's a situation in which raping another human for fun is a moral action. Which situation?

Why is this? The simple answer is, "Life is complicated." ... Every restriction creates it's own exclusions, if only because specifics imply that whatever is not mentioned, is allowable.

No they don't. Specifics imply that whatever is not mentioned is some other rule's job to say whether is allowable. Complexity doesn't mean every rule is unreliable; it just means a reliable moral code is going to look a lot more like a law book than a philosopher's axiom.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A God that constructs such an interesting place to exist is hardly likely to create beings that should desire to destroy it.

More of the same. This 'place' is interesting to us, but that's still inside our heads. You have no evidence for your god other than your willingness to credit him with things you find appealing.
And that's no answer. How do we detect this 'will's' desire for us to behave in a certain way? What tells you that in all the vastness of this 'place' that's so interesting to us, the creator even notices us?
I tend the lawn around my house, an act of will, but if there are ants out there that find it interesting or amenable or a good place to live, i flat out don't give a rat's ass.

If He exists it is logical to assume He believes that we should carry on His creative works....

Logic isn't for assumptions. You use assumptions to START the logical chain, then find logical conclusions for your starting assumptions.
That's kinda basic.
If you think you can logically assume something, you're just dressing your opinion up, playing 'let's pretend' that it can compete with objective facts.

including His moral works (all his works involve order).He wouldn't create a tool to work against Himself would He?

Just more assumptions and bare assertions.
No logic, no evidence, no processing.

There's no reason to think there's a creator, nor is there any evidence of morality embedded in creation. Except that you want it to be true... Which isn't a compelling argument for others.

 

[Keith&Co.]

We can speculate about some kind of 'will' if you want, but you don't get to smuggle in your preferred notion of what that means and call it settled.

Well, hey, was anyone fooled by his reference to some unattributed 'will' in the first place?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think that you are conflating morality with self interest...we all know that the highest description of a moral act is that it is a brave one.

Brave? I think you mean 'selfless.'

A brave act requires that a member of the group willingly puts his life on the line for the group even though he wishes to live.

Right. Selfless, or sacrifice. 'brave' is kinda useless as a term, here.
The highest regarded acts are those that appear to be selfless, where someone other than the actor benefits the most, or at all.
But that's not brave, necessarily.
A man blocked an armed robber and saved lives. But he wasn't motivated by a desire to save lives. The motivation he admitted to later was that he knew they were on camera and didn't want to look like a wimp if the robbery made it to you-tube.
So what looked like a selfless act, jumping towards a man with a gun, was purely motivated by his self-image.
I think most 'moral' behavior is driven by our self-image, which is purely self-interest. We think of ourselves as nice people, so we do things that won't keep us up at night, later, feeling guilty.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Independence of mind" is simply part of the definition of "objective" in this context. What definition of "objective" are you using?

"Independence of mind" is a definition devoid of philosophical implications; people use it because it helps them to not notice their own equivocation fallacies. I'd recommend a definition that captures the philosophical work people keep trying to put definitions of "objective" to, something more along the lines of "Independence of opinion" or "If two people disagree then at least one of them is wrong". But it's up to apeman to define his terms. If he chooses to go with "Independence of mind", then I get to keep insisting that he tell us whether he really thinks whether a person has schizophrenia is a subjective question until he figures out that "Independence of mind" isn't really what he means by "objective".

 

[Bomb#20]

Can someone who supports objective morality tell me how do we decide if gay rights is on the objective list or not?

How about this? Listen carefully to the arguments on both sides, and then rule against the side whose arguments are all mind-blowingly stupid. Have you read what passes for reasoning among the anti-gay-rights?

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.

Lots of people tell me that objective physical laws exist, and even tell me what some of them are, but I never get a complete list or a way to test any configuration of matter against the list. When I ask where two electrons will end up if I drop them into a black hole, the "prediction" is just self-contradictory gibberish. Oddly enough, nobody seems to deduce from this circumstance that whether momentum is a conserved quantity is a question of personal taste.

 

[apeman]

A God that constructs such an interesting place to exist is hardly likely to create beings that should desire to destroy it. If He exists it is logical to assume He believes that we should carry on His creative works...including His moral works (all his works involve order).He wouldn't create a tool to work against Himself would He?

That's a boatload of assumptions without any justification. Keith's original point still stands: without knowing anything about this 'will' that directed an orderly universe, there is no reason to think it has anything to do with how humans should behave. Obviously, you're referring to God and using a capitalized male pronoun to talk about it, so you probably think you know enough about God to draw such conclusions. The problem is that nobody else accepts those premises, because there is no God. We can speculate about some kind of 'will' if you want, but you don't get to smuggle in your preferred notion of what that means and call it settled.

If God created this place then it is logical to think that He values order (this place utterly depends on order )...moral order as much as any other form of order.

 

[Bronzeage]

A human ought not to rape another human for fun. But you're saying there's a situation in which raping another human for fun is a moral action. Which situation?

Why is this? The simple answer is, "Life is complicated." ... Every restriction creates it's own exclusions, if only because specifics imply that whatever is not mentioned, is allowable.

No they don't. Specifics imply that whatever is not mentioned is some other rule's job to say whether is allowable. Complexity doesn't mean every rule is unreliable; it just means a reliable moral code is going to look a lot more like a law book than a philosopher's axiom.

This situation: You find yourself in a strange land, where one of their strange practices is virgin sacrifice. Let's say they feed virgins to a dragon. Some virgins see this as an honor, others don't like the idea. You can save the virgins by having sex with them. Some are happy to see you, others less so. You don't know until you are face to face with each virgin. There is also a time factor. You might pass up the resistant virgins and leave them to their fate, but each virgin you leave intact means one eager virgin will be eaten by the dragon.

The moral question for you is, if you discover you actually enjoy this work, should quit because you just realized you are having fun?

I didn't know rules had a principle of the division of labor.

Thy shalt not kill.
What if someone is trying to kill me.
Okay, then you can kill to save your own life.
What about if he is trying to kill my brother.
Okay, you can kill to save your brother.
What if he just wants to kill me and my brother, but hasn't actually tried to kill either of us yet?
Okay, you have to go back to the "Love thy neighbor" rule.
But he wants to kill me. Why can't I kill him first?
Because you can't kill someone who is not trying to kill you at this moment.
But if he sneaks up on me, I'll be dead.
Then, he has done something which is a violation of objective morality.

 

[apeman]

I think that you are conflating morality with self interest...we all know that the highest description of a moral act is that it is a brave one. A brave act requires that a member of the group willingly puts his life on the line for the group even though he wishes to live. Chesterton nailed it with...."Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die.". Self interest can not be the foundation of morality...it is only one of its drivers.

Why do you find morality and self interest to be in conflict? People kill themselves all the time. Every once in a while we elevate this act to be something heroic.

If bravery were the result of a universal objective morality, it would be much more common. One of the stranger aspects of individual humans is their self perception, which includes what we believe to t others perceive about us. This constitutes our self worth. In some cases, our perceived self worth is so great, we will sacrifice ourselves in return for the comfort of knowing others will think well of us for it.

Self interest is the foundation of morality. There can be no other, because there is no other means of survival. We cannot survive as a self, only as a group of selves. Self interest dictates we coexist and cooperate.

I do not think that self interest necessarily conflicts with morality, nor do I think self interest is the foundation of morality. The highest moral principles require that we should do the right thing regardless of perceived reward.There has to be a sense that morals are beyond our opinions, that we subjugate our own motives to higher ones .

 

[apeman]

Hi Bomb , I haven't got time to respond to all your points but the key one is that morality is based in motive , motive is necessarily based in mind ,therefore for there to be objective morality it is necessary that the world is a product of a mind.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why do you find morality and self interest to be in conflict? People kill themselves all the time. Every once in a while we elevate this act to be something heroic.

If bravery were the result of a universal objective morality, it would be much more common. One of the stranger aspects of individual humans is their self perception, which includes what we believe to t others perceive about us. This constitutes our self worth. In some cases, our perceived self worth is so great, we will sacrifice ourselves in return for the comfort of knowing others will think well of us for it.

Self interest is the foundation of morality. There can be no other, because there is no other means of survival. We cannot survive as a self, only as a group of selves. Self interest dictates we coexist and cooperate.

I do not think that self interest necessarily conflicts with morality, nor do I think self interest is the foundation of morality. The highest moral principles require that we should do the right thing regardless of perceived reward.There has to be a sense that morals are beyond our opinions, that we subjugate our own motives to higher ones .

This is what we call talking a good game. Your highest moral principles still depend upon the result, otherwise known as the reward. You'll need an entire set of principles to define rewards and correlate them to results, all of which will be very subjective.

 

[apeman]

More of the same. This 'place' is interesting to us, but that's still inside our heads. You have no evidence for your god other than your willingness to credit him with things you find appealing.
And that's no answer. How do we detect this 'will's' desire for us to behave in a certain way? What tells you that in all the vastness of this 'place' that's so interesting to us, the creator even notices us?
I tend the lawn around my house, an act of will, but if there are ants out there that find it interesting or amenable or a good place to live, i flat out don't give a rat's ass.

If He exists it is logical to assume He believes that we should carry on His creative works....

Logic isn't for assumptions. You use assumptions to START the logical chain, then find logical conclusions for your starting assumptions.
That's kinda basic.
If you think you can logically assume something, you're just dressing your opinion up, playing 'let's pretend' that it can compete with objective facts.

including His moral works (all his works involve order).He wouldn't create a tool to work against Himself would He?

Just more assumptions and bare assertions.
No logic, no evidence, no processing.

There's no reason to think there's a creator, nor is there any evidence of morality embedded in creation. Except that you want it to be true... Which isn't a compelling argument for others.

If there is a Creator He must value order. He invented us with the ability to consider His will based on His use of order.It is reasonable to believe that a Being that necessarily places order in high regard would also place order within morality.

I think that order is evidence of intent...until you can prove to me that you would be more creative after a lobotomy .

 

[apeman]

I do not think that self interest necessarily conflicts with morality, nor do I think self interest is the foundation of morality. The highest moral principles require that we should do the right thing regardless of perceived reward.There has to be a sense that morals are beyond our opinions, that we subjugate our own motives to higher ones .

This is what we call talking a good game. Your highest moral principles still depend upon the result, otherwise known as the reward. You'll need an entire set of principles to define rewards and correlate them to results, all of which will be very subjective.

With the God idea doubt plays a big part. Even believers suffer doubt, so their motives (which only they and their God knows) are guided not by outright perception of reward but by hope , often slim hope.It makes you hope that you are doing the right thing , that your motives are good.

So, imo, the foundation of morality is in the perception that God knows your motive, whereas people only see your act

 

[PyramidHead]

More of the same. This 'place' is interesting to us, but that's still inside our heads. You have no evidence for your god other than your willingness to credit him with things you find appealing.
And that's no answer. How do we detect this 'will's' desire for us to behave in a certain way? What tells you that in all the vastness of this 'place' that's so interesting to us, the creator even notices us?
I tend the lawn around my house, an act of will, but if there are ants out there that find it interesting or amenable or a good place to live, i flat out don't give a rat's ass. Logic isn't for assumptions. You use assumptions to START the logical chain, then find logical conclusions for your starting assumptions.
That's kinda basic.
If you think you can logically assume something, you're just dressing your opinion up, playing 'let's pretend' that it can compete with objective facts.

including His moral works (all his works involve order).He wouldn't create a tool to work against Himself would He?

Just more assumptions and bare assertions.
No logic, no evidence, no processing.

There's no reason to think there's a creator, nor is there any evidence of morality embedded in creation. Except that you want it to be true... Which isn't a compelling argument for others.

If there is a Creator He must value order. He invented us with the ability to consider His will based on His use of order.It is reasonable to believe that a Being that necessarily places order in high regard would also place order within morality.

I think that order is evidence of intent...until you can prove to me that you would be more creative after a lobotomy .

If there is a creator, above all else He values indifferent, chaotic destruction that inevitably spirals toward even its own decay. The universe is characterized by violent events occurring with no regard for human values. Filled with unfathomably deep, dark stretches of pure meaninglessness. Viewed from any point within it, it appears on the whole as a uniform soup of gas and rubble. Beneath the law-like behaviors of some of its constituent parts lies an unpredictable, redundant, asymmetrical array of forces that blindly do whatever they do. Our best attempts to explain it are aesthetically lopsided. Even nothingness itself, upon closer inspection, is revealed to be a furious magma in constant agitation. The universe as we know it just exploded onto the scene, and spit us out as a very late afterthought. It is the very antithesis of the kind of 'order' that human moral systems strive for.