non-existence of objective morality

[Jobar]

I'm aware of Hume's dictum that 'ought'- moral imperatives- cannot be derived from 'is'- statements of empirical fact. Two things lead me to question the accuracy of this. First, there's a wide range of chaotic linkages found in nature, such as the 'butterfly effect' in atmospheric physics, and none of these effects are attributed to anything outside of empirical reality; I think that human morality can be considered to be chaotically linked to the facts of the world we live in, and the survival strategies of humans in that world. Second, the absence of anything I can identify as a moral absolute; what we call 'moral' changes with real-world conditions, and the ways in which our "ideals" change according to our abilities to manipulate the world around us.

I realize I'm going against any number of famous philosophers when I claim this, but I can't see where my ideas are wrong. I've seen so many seemingly counterintuitive moral rules explained by subtle and elegant reference to natural conditions, and I can't think of any examples where morality simply *can't* be explained empirically.

What we would like to be able to do, is to derive ethical guidelines from the natural world- in short, to derive our 'oughts' from what is.

I think it *is* possible to go from non-value statements to value statements. It's just that the chain of inferences is very long- you have to start at inorganic chemistry, build up to organic chemistry, then to behavior of simple organisms and evolved survival drives, then to complex organisms with a wide range of survival methods in a wide range of niches, then to intelligence... as I said, very long. But with proper understanding of chemistry, biology, and human methods of survival in various ecological niches and environmental conditions, it looks like our moral judgments do spring from facts of nature which are not considered value statements. IOW, a good and workable set of ethics must be linked to objective, physical reality- though that linkage may be long and winding.

 

[The AntiChris]

You will always have people who are committed to one ethical view or another, despite being told the ways that it is worse than alternative views (because the ways it is shown to be worse are not the kind of ways that drive their activity), and people who are committed to a set of beliefs about the empirical world despite being provided with evidence to the contrary (because they do not consider the evidence applicable, convincing, or whatever).

I therefore remain skeptical of any claim that science is a purely neutral report of an objective state of affairs in reality, while ethics is the insubstantial and subjective expression of opinion belonging to the realm of emotionalism.

Why? I don't see an argument here. You seem to be saying that because there are disagreements in both the 'empirical' and 'ethical' realms, there is no significant difference between beliefs in the two realms. This doesn't seem to follow.

I'm not making the positive claim that both are objective or subjective, I'm making the negative claim that it cannot be shown that they differ in their status without appealing to a source that is already assumed to be objective.

Ok. It seems to me that what's needed here is a clear and unambiguous explanation of what you mean by the terms 'subjective' and 'objective'.

 

[Juma]

I'm aware of Hume's dictum that 'ought'- moral imperatives- cannot be derived from 'is'- statements of empirical fact. Two things lead me to question the accuracy of this. First, there's a wide range of chaotic linkages found in nature, such as the 'butterfly effect' in atmospheric physics, and none of these effects are attributed to anything outside of empirical reality; I think that human morality can be considered to be chaotically linked to the facts of the world we live in, and the survival strategies of humans in that world. Second, the absence of anything I can identify as a moral absolute; what we call 'moral' changes with real-world conditions, and the ways in which our "ideals" change according to our abilities to manipulate the world around us.

I realize I'm going against any number of famous philosophers when I claim this, but I can't see where my ideas are wrong. I've seen so many seemingly counterintuitive moral rules explained by subtle and elegant reference to natural conditions, and I can't think of any examples where morality simply *can't* be explained empirically.

What we would like to be able to do, is to derive ethical guidelines from the natural world- in short, to derive our 'oughts' from what is.

I think it *is* possible to go from non-value statements to value statements. It's just that the chain of inferences is very long- you have to start at inorganic chemistry, build up to organic chemistry, then to behavior of simple organisms and evolved survival drives, then to complex organisms with a wide range of survival methods in a wide range of niches, then to intelligence... as I said, very long. But with proper understanding of chemistry, biology, and human methods of survival in various ecological niches and environmental conditions, it looks like our moral judgments do spring from facts of nature which are not considered value statements. IOW, a good and workable set of ethics must be linked to objective, physical reality- though that linkage may be long and winding.

”is” - depends on facts.
”ought” - depends on what goals we have.

Think if an autonomous robot person: his ”oughts” are deoendent upon the goals he is programmed to achieve.
The same is true of us. Our ”oughts” comes from how our brain is wired.

 

[Bronzeage]

This kind of discussion gets so tedious after the 1296th retelling.

I think this stems from a failure to understand the fundamental reason morality exists, in the first place. We get wrapped up in the "Says who?" side of the argument, where the morality isn't questioned, the authority behind the morality is questioned.

That's the real problem. There is no authority behind morality. Any society which gets so large that any one individual can no longer recognize everyone else in the group by their face, will develop some kind of authority system. The morality predates this point in time, and authority always assumes an enforcement role. Why? Because authority has to tell someone what they can and can't do, and is always looking for new things to authoritate over.

The function of morality is very simple. It is a set of rules which allows humans to live in close proximity and not destroy one another. We are social animals and a single human, without the support of a group, will soon die. That is just a fact. There maybe a small environment on this planet where a lone human could find enough food to sustain themselves, not suffer from the weather, or be prey to large animals. Actually, there's not. The places where it is possible today have been wiped clean of big predators, by groups of humans.

We need a group and we need to keep peace in the group. The first rule if every moral code is, "Do not kill your friends." That's pretty simple, but it distinguishes between our group and all others. The second rule is, "Don't steal your friend's stuff." Taking something that someone believes they have an exclusive right to have, always starts a fight. Fights within the group are bad.

Everything after this point is just an argument over definitions. There has never been anything objective about definitions. Who is my friend? Once we settle that thorny issue, we have to decide what can be owned, what is owned by all, and what things does none have any claim upon? Some societies think it's fine to own a person, but only a person from another group. See how that works?

If there is anyway to objectively resolve those questions, I've never seen it done.

Back to authority for a moment. Societies and populations grow or shrink, but they always change in response to the environment. A place where resources are scarce will always have very strict property rules. A place where food and water are plentiful, is not going to worry about who owns the mango tree. A society only grows as it's resources allow. This means large societies have great resources. This reduce the pressure to have strict enforcement of older definitions of property, and broadens the definition of friend. Authority changes slowly and is often enforcing moral sanctions that have long become obsolete, and no longer contribute to general group welfare.

We are currently at the stage where everyone in the world is our friend, on a one to one basis. There is no one in this world that I can kill, and not have to worry about some consequence within my own group. In our time, killing with impunity is reserved for group upon group murder. If I stand under a flag and shoot someone standing under their own flag, my behavior is excused. Sort of weird, if you think of it that way.

 

[steve_bank]

The common Christian argument is that without absolute morality people can do whatever they like. That is true. Our civil laws limit behavior that has a consensus on being harmful. Drunk driving, murder and so on. The old so called sodomy laws made oral sex gay or hetero illegal, all gone. In the 60s we had Blue Laws in Ct. No,business on Sunday, gone.

They claim an absolute morality dictated by god through the bible.\, even when the bible is contradictory or says nothing about an issue. Homosexuality and sex out of marriage are absolutely immoral because god says so, through a somewhat disjointed incoherent bible.

Morality is a social consensus. There Is a Pacific island culture where men and women both go bare breasted, it is not swexually provacative. The exposed thigh is considered sexually provocative. The Samurai culture considered suicide honorable.

In the Catholic church the pope is considered to be the absolute moral authority on Earth, speaking for god. The pope says birth control is a sin against god, and so it becomes.

 

[Lion IRC]

One of the criteria for the objective quality of an extant moral law would be its enforceability.

A moral law which isn't or can't be enforced can hardly even be called a law - let alone an objective one.

According to biblical theology God is the transcendent law giver, the objective umpire and the inescapable enforcer. (The law applies and is enforced universally. And even people who disagree on the interpretation of the law all agree who the umpire is.)

Coupled with the notion of God's omniscience, if any moral law qualifies as objectively wise/true/real, it would be God's law.

 

[bilby]

One of the criteria for the objective quality of an extant moral law would be its enforceability.

A moral law which isn't or can't be enforced can hardly even be called a law - let alone an objective one.

According to biblical theology God is the transcendent law giver, the objective umpire and the inescapable enforcer. (The law applies and is enforced universally. And even people who disagree on the interpretation of the law all agree who the umpire is.)

Coupled with the notion of God's omniscience, if any moral law qualifies as objectively wise/true/real, it would be God's law.

What the fuck is this nonsense? Even theists don't agree who the umpire is, or how many there are - And that's just amongst the people who are too thick to grasp that morality cannot come from authority; Something that was proved to be logically sound several thousand years ago.

Perhaps you should consider learning to think before shitting all over your already limited credibility with such a concentrated mess of half-baked claptrap.

This is fractally wrong. At every possible level, your post manages to be obviously and evidently false, and to be based on further falsehoods.

It's actually quite impressive that anyone could manage to be so badly wrong about so much in so few words.

On reflection, I would advise you against learning to think, because were you to do so, and to then re-read your above post, the embarrassment could be fatal.

 

[Lion IRC]

Right on cue bilby shows up to ruin the interesting thread with vulgar personal attacks

 

[James Brown]

God is the law-giver, the law-enforcer, as well as judge, jury, and executioner?

Is there no Separation of Powers in the Christian Heaven? Sounds ripe for corruption and injustice.

 

[Learner]

Don't want to make this soley religious but If it is Gods domain in the first place, there can't be any corruption or injustice by His own creation. Especially when it then becomes the matter of: Who actually "wants" to exist and "belong" there by HIS ways, by choice!
(thats all)

 

[Bomb#20]

One of the criteria for the objective quality of an extant moral law would be its enforceability.

This is where you go off the rails, at the very beginning. You're completely wrong. Enforceability is no part of the criteria for objectivity. To claim that it is is just a dressed-up way to say "Might makes right." Might does not make right. Right makes right.

 

[Bomb#20]

Don't want to make this soley religious but If it is Gods domain in the first place, there can't be any corruption or injustice by His own creation.

But there is corruption and injustice in the human race here on Earth. So are you implying Earth doesn't belong to God? Or are you implying man was not created by God?

Especially when it then becomes the matter of: Who actually "wants" to exist and "belong" there by HIS ways, by choice!
(thats all)

Are you proposing that nobody who actually "wants" to exist and "belong" in the Christian Heaven by His ways is corrupt or unjust? We have had two thousand years of appalling history proving that that is not the case.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

One of the criteria for the objective quality of an extant moral law would be its enforceability.

As Bomb#20 explained, that's completely wrong.
Here's an analogy: Suppose Putin orders the assassination of a Russian defector in the UK. Russian assassin Ivanov follows Putin's orders, and goes ahead with the assassination. Then, Ivanov goes back to Russia, where he is protected by the government. The UK government knows Putin gave the order, though they don't know who carried it out, and in any case, they can't punish either of them. Now, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Putin broke UK law, and as to whether Ivanov did. They both did - they behaved illegally.
Now this is so even if neither of them can be punished - and also, that is regardless of sanctions. In fact, we might as well stipulate that Russia can make an agreement with China and other countries and just ignore Western sanctions. Moreover, even if we don't stipulate that and the Russian economy suffers as a result of the sanctions, it's even realistic and probable that Ivanov suffers no negative consequences from any actions the UK government might (also realistically) take. And he still behaved illegally.

Now, positive law changes from country to country. But that is not the point - the point is that whether the action is illegal is an objective matter (and it is, in the example), regardless of enforceability.

 

[James Brown]

If it is Gods domain in the first place, there can't be any corruption or injustice by His own creation.

According to whom? God's PR Department?

Especially when it then becomes the matter of: Who actually "wants" to exist and "belong" there by HIS ways, by choice!

That sounds reasonable, but if we take the Christian at his word, God has created two paradise environments populated with free-willed beings. The first was before the creation of the world, and the result was that Lucifer and one-third of the angels rebelled and were exiled. The second was the Garden of Eden, and the result was that Adam and Eve rebelled and ushered sin into the world.

You'll forgive me if I'm not confident that God's third version will go any better.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Right on cue bilby shows up to ruin the interesting thread with vulgar personal attacks

You can always choose to discuss the matter with those of us who do not attack you but argue against your claims.

 

[Lion IRC]

That's what I choose.

 

[Lion IRC]

One of the criteria for the objective quality of an extant moral law would be its enforceability.

This is where you go off the rails, at the very beginning. You're completely wrong. Enforceability is no part of the criteria for objectivity. To claim that it is is just a dressed-up way to say "Might makes right." Might does not make right. Right makes right.

An unenforceable law is called an opinion.
You say "right makes right" but that's just a brute claim so we need some way to deal with the person who disagrees with that subjective opinion.

I say the absence of transcendent, universal enforcement would render a so-called 'law' moot.
That element alone doesn't suffice to make the law moral but it does give us and objective datum.

See the cartoon below. Wabbit and Duck both agree there is such a thing as "hunting season". They both agree that you can appeal to the existence of an authority that decides which season it is. No doubt they both think that authority would adjudicate in their favor. And there's no point appealing to a Higher Authority (umpire) if that umpire is impotent and if there's no consequences for hunting without a license.

 

[bilby]

Right on cue bilby shows up to ruin the interesting thread with vulgar personal attacks

If you think your taking a massive dump all over logic and reason is interesting, then you are to be pitied.

There can be no interesting debate with a person who accepts nonsense as axiomatic.

Vulgarity is perfectly justifed in response to your barbaric abuse of fact and reason; And the 'personal attack' is a figment of your imagination - I am attacking your fucking idiotic ideas (as they so richly deserve), not your person.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the criteria for the objective quality of an extant moral law would be its enforceability.

This is where you go off the rails, at the very beginning. You're completely wrong. Enforceability is no part of the criteria for objectivity. To claim that it is is just a dressed-up way to say "Might makes right." Might does not make right. Right makes right.

So, what makes right?

What is moral in one culture can appear to be horrendous in another. In the episode where Jesus tells the adulteress to "Go and sin no more," it is she who has behaved immorally and the people who want to stone her to death, who are acting morally. This seems rather extreme to us, but this peculiar bit of moral code is intended to protect one's property from theft. This woman is a man's property, and another man has diminished its value. Of course, killing her does reduce her value to zero, but there is always social value in deterrence. Which is to say, might(in this case, a crowd carrying stones) does make right.

There is no human act which can be perfectly moral, given the proper circumstances, and abhorrently immoral in other circumstances. To try to write an absolute code of right and wrong is an exercise in futility.

 

[Juma]

Right on cue bilby shows up to ruin the interesting thread with vulgar personal attacks

Yeah. Its really bad taste to bring up the vulgar truth...