Objective/Subjective

[Marvin Edwards]

In regards to morality, which seeks the best good and least harm for everyone, to the degree that benefits and harms can be objectively measured, morality is objective.

I'm not sure about this (sounds like Sam Harris).

What we consider to be a harm or benefit is a value judgement so not objective.

I've avoided reading Sam Harris due to his book on Free Will.

Harm and benefit can often be matters of scientific objectivity. For example, we can consult a biologist to get an objective evaluation of what things are likely to actually harm or benefit a given shrub.

 

[The AntiChris]

Harm and benefit can often be matters of scientific objectivity. For example, we can consult a biologist to get an objective evaluation of what things are likely to actually harm or benefit a given shrub.

So by harm/benefit you mean something like discourage/encourage healthy growth. I don't think human health is universally thought of as a moral issue (it can lead to the demonization of lifestyle choices).

I've avoided reading Sam Harris due to his book on Free Will.

The approach you're taking here is very similar to that taken by Sam Harris in  The Moral Landscape.

 

[skepticalbip]

In regards to morality, which seeks the best good and least harm for everyone, to the degree that benefits and harms can be objectively measured, morality is objective.

I'm not sure about this (sounds like Sam Harris).

What we consider to be a harm or benefit is a value judgement so not objective.

I've avoided reading Sam Harris due to his book on Free Will.

Harm and benefit can often be matters of scientific objectivity. For example, we can consult a biologist to get an objective evaluation of what things are likely to actually harm or benefit a given shrub.

But, in that instance, that still leaves the subjective evaluation of whether the harm or benefit would be "good" or "bad". If the shrub is wanted then harming it would be "bad" and benefitting it would be "good". If the shrub is not wanted then harming it would be "good" and benefitting it would be "bad".

 

[WAB]

I've avoided reading Sam Harris due to his book on Free Will.

Harm and benefit can often be matters of scientific objectivity. For example, we can consult a biologist to get an objective evaluation of what things are likely to actually harm or benefit a given shrub.

But, in that instance, that still leaves the subjective evaluation of whether the harm or benefit would be "good" or "bad". If the shrub is wanted then harming it would be "bad" and benefitting it would be "good". If the shrub is not wanted then harming it would be "good" and benefitting it would be "bad".

I believe Marvin means benefit to the shrub, not to whomever wants or doesn't want it.

?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I've avoided reading Sam Harris due to his book on Free Will.

Harm and benefit can often be matters of scientific objectivity. For example, we can consult a biologist to get an objective evaluation of what things are likely to actually harm or benefit a given shrub.

But, in that instance, that still leaves the subjective evaluation of whether the harm or benefit would be "good" or "bad". If the shrub is wanted then harming it would be "bad" and benefitting it would be "good". If the shrub is not wanted then harming it would be "good" and benefitting it would be "bad".

I believe Marvin means benefit to the shrub, not to whomever wants or doesn't want it.

?

Correct. Morality is species specific. What is good for the lion is bad for the antelope. For any given species, we have scientists who study them, and can provide objective statements as to what is good or bad for them.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, ethologists are every beast's confessor. Thank you Tinbergen with fish all lined up in roe.