objective morality

[Staircaseghost]

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".

Indeed it would.

Well, then this rather puts paid to the claim that "'independence of mind' is a definition devoid of philosophical implications," doesn't it. Some set of truths being relativized to optional conceptual schemes or historically contingent social norms is, philosophically speaking, a real BFD. In fact, it is one of the central preoccupations of the profession, and has been in one form or another ever since Plato declared his jihad against the Sophists.

That someone might challenge claims of morality's mind-dependence is perfectly natural. That someone might challenge whether the question is even philosophically relevant is just downright odd. If there is any equivocation going on, it is between the mundane type-3 or type-3' mind-dependencies and the decidedly BFD dependency of type-3''.

So getting someone to admit that mental illness's mind dependence (in the trivial sense) is not a knock on its objectivity (in the non-trivial sense) is not going to force them to the realization "how silly of me to have thought morality's being mind-dependent or not was at all philosophically interesting."

Are you suggesting that the Labor Theory of Value is an element of the semantics of objective value claims?

I'm not sure what you mean by a theory being an element of something, but it was indeed thought by Smith, Ricardo, and Marx that there was an objective, "absolute value" or "real cost" to goods proportional to invested labor. And so under this metaphysical hunch, our thoughts about economic value hook up with the world such that

"The economic value of this soda is less than that of this automobile"​

is a mind-independent predication of soda in the same way as

"The volume of this soda is less than one liter"​

is a mind-independent predication, and in a way that

"The taste of this soda is better than orange juice"​

is not. There is a genuine, non-trivial philosophical difference between people who think economic valuing is more like the third kind of phenomenon than like the second.

If you mean one can choose to reinterpret his "just in our minds" criterion to mean something more reasonable, something about beliefs or attitudes that will not be slayable by the ugly fact I presented, possibly so.

Indubitably so. I tried hard to dubit it and came up short. The truth of (3) and (3') is no more an "ugly fact" he needs to face up to than the truth of (1) and (1') is an "ugly fact" that "slays" the subjectivity of taste.

 

[apeman]

You make it sound as though the no God theory is somehow less of a jump than the God theory.The no God theory makes huge assumptions...such as this world mindlessly makes itself as if we have any proof of such a possibility! At least the God theory is backed up by the fact that order requires intention...at least we know jet engines have to be intended and the laws of nature that back them are necessarily as complicated and predictable and therefore intended.

We know we have done the right thing when our motives are good (morals exist within motive), the act itself (without motive) is amoral.

You've completely missed the point. If you are going to use God as the source of your objective morality(God says do this, God says don't do this, etc), you are drawing on data to which only you have access. If I ask God whether or not it is moral to steal bread, if my children are starving, I don't get a definitive answer. I could ask you, but I would have to believe you have a perfect understanding of God's nature and intentions.

My motives are always good and I want to feed my children. How was I to know the baker also has children who will go hungry because thief stole their bread? They are also sad that I killed their father because he interrupted me while I was stealing bread for my hungry children. My motives were good, and while I did not burgle the bakery with the intention of murder, my children's lives are at stake, and I can't let anyone deter me because my motives are good.

If you believe in God it is necessary that you also believe in what He stands for. Even if He hasn't spoken directly to you, you can try to comprehend what his morals would be because such a Being would be perfect.

Obviously His morals would be the highest morals. We can consider what these higher morals would be and try to act on them (and often fail because we're pretty fucked up).

Morals in the world previously dominated by Christianity consist of a relatively small list of things not to do...if the driving motive is to do those "forbidden" things then that can be considered morally wrong.If the aim of any act is to deliberately harm another in order to benefit the self at his expense, then that can be considered immoral.

With your example , if you are putting the welfare of your kids above his kids (knowingly) then that would be immoral because you would be doing it for selfish reasons (your relationship with your kids).

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not pre-supposing a Creator, I've already explained why there is good reason for believing in His existence.

You've explained whyit's logical to assume things about your creator. You haven't provided a good reason to believe He exists.

This world is orderly, it is governed by the laws of nature which I guess you think "emanate" from it.

No, laws are invented by humans trying to understand nature, to predict it.
Laws don't 'emanate.'
I don't think of laws as radiations...I'm not even sure what word you meant to use there.

It is only mind that has the capacity to act with a degree of freedom from the world in which it exists....God (if there is one) must have done this for a reason...maybe He wants company , I don't know.

Yeah, there's your presupposition. Minds have a trait, therefore god done made it that way? that's not a logical conclusion.

An example of an objective moral truth is that you should not harm another for fun...the morality exists in the words "for fun".

I didn't ask for an example, i asked how you determine that this moral truth is an objective moral. How do you detect the permanent morals that God has embedded in his creation? What makes you call this an objective moral?

- - - Updated - - -

At least the God theory is backed up by the fact that order requires intention....

Please so that it's a fact that all order requires intention.
Not just some order.
Show that order depends on will.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are plenty of causes, and I'm not sure why the cause would be the issue - rather than the phenomenon we're dealing with, namely homosexuality.

Because you said 'illness.' To me, 'illness' would be a failure of something.

There's an episode of House, MD where they have a young woman who's very hot, an international model. She's a girl. it's okay to be a girl, half the human race is a girl. But in her case, she is actually, genetically, a boy. Something went wrong during her development. Her medical problems stem from that fact.
It's not that 'being a girl' is an illness. Except in his case, the fact that he presents as a girl is an illness.
So before we can determine if the gender is an illness, we would need to know if they're a girl because something in the boy's development went wrong, or if they're a girl because that gender is one of the expected results you get from time to time in the course of humans being born.

 

[Bronzeage]

You've completely missed the point. If you are going to use God as the source of your objective morality(God says do this, God says don't do this, etc), you are drawing on data to which only you have access. If I ask God whether or not it is moral to steal bread, if my children are starving, I don't get a definitive answer. I could ask you, but I would have to believe you have a perfect understanding of God's nature and intentions.

My motives are always good and I want to feed my children. How was I to know the baker also has children who will go hungry because thief stole their bread? They are also sad that I killed their father because he interrupted me while I was stealing bread for my hungry children. My motives were good, and while I did not burgle the bakery with the intention of murder, my children's lives are at stake, and I can't let anyone deter me because my motives are good.

If you believe in God it is necessary that you also believe in what He stands for. Even if He hasn't spoken directly to you, you can try to comprehend what his morals would be because such a Being would be perfect.

Obviously His morals would be the highest morals. We can consider what these higher morals would be and try to act on them (and often fail because we're pretty fucked up).

Morals in the world previously dominated by Christianity consist of a relatively small list of things not to do...if the driving motive is to do those "forbidden" things then that can be considered morally wrong.If the aim of any act is to deliberately harm another in order to benefit the self at his expense, then that can be considered immoral.

With your example , if you are putting the welfare of your kids above his kids (knowingly) then that would be immoral because you would be doing it for selfish reasons (your relationship with your kids).

If I believe God is necessary, why does it follow that I would have any idea what He stands for(other than ending sentences with a preposition)? Without some sort of real direction from God, how can I know what perfection might be? I still have to take your word for all of this, because you've somehow obtained the important information. Now I am faced with a dilemma. Should I wait for God to talk to me, or listen to some human, whose logical process seems deeply flawed?

Now, it's become selfish to value my relationship with my children, who I am pretty sure I am expected to keep alive for a certain number of years. If I allow them to starve in order to obtain my spiritual purity, there has to be some sort of catch.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If I believe God is necessary, why does it follow that I would have any idea what He stands for(other than ending sentences with a preposition)? Without some sort of real direction from God, how can I know what perfection might be? I still have to take your word for all of this, because you've somehow obtained the important information. Now I am faced with a dilemma. Should I wait for God to talk to me, or listen to some human, whose logical process seems deeply flawed?

Now, it's become selfish to value my relationship with my children, who I am pretty sure I am expected to keep alive for a certain number of years. If I allow them to starve in order to obtain my spiritual purity, there has to be some sort of catch.

Which is a good point. Even if there were some kind of objective morality for the universe, trusting some human to explain it to you makes it entirely subjective. When you don't know whether or not he got it wrong, you're just trusting somebody's interpretation of morality and have no reason to assume that it's any better than your own.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because you said 'illness.' To me, 'illness' would be a failure of something.

Okay, even so, but I'm asking why the cause has to be a failure or something.

Still, this is a side issue. The more important points in my post are the ones you didn't address. If you had, I would have continued with the parallel between mental illness on one hand, and immorality on the other, but using information about your beliefs that I do not have.

For example, would you agree then that those who do not know what causes homosexuality (i.e., all of us) should remain undecided as to whether it's a mental illness?
I'm not saying that that is not so. I'm just asking (in order to address the issue of objectivity depending on your reply).

There's an episode of House, MD where they have a young woman who's very hot, an international model. She's a girl. it's okay to be a girl, half the human race is a girl. But in her case, she is actually, genetically, a boy. Something went wrong during her development. Her medical problems stem from that fact.
It's not that 'being a girl' is an illness. Except in his case, the fact that he presents as a girl is an illness.

But suppose that another person has the same condition, only she never developed: she just came into existence in a freak quantum event in a universe with infinitely many planets. She would still be ill. On the other hand, someone might be healthy and still come into existence in a freak quantum event.
The point is that causes do not seem decisive: a zillion different causes possibly result in illnesses, and even uncaused entities are possibly ill - or healthy.

But this is a side issue.

So before we can determine if the gender is an illness, we would need to know if they're a girl because something in the boy's development went wrong, or if they're a girl because that gender is one of the expected results you get from time to time in the course of humans being born.

But we can tell that being a girl is not an illness, without knowing what caused a person to be a girl.

Let me put it in a different way: For nearly all of the time humans had been around, it was not known what caused people to be blind from birth. And yet, people already knew that being blind from birth is an illness.

In fact, you said it yourself: "Being blind in the left eye would be an illness." You are correct. But people knew that being blind in the left eye was an illness even before they knew what causes blindness in the left eye (leaving trauma aside, perhaps).

Similarly, the causes of, say, malaria were not known, but still, people could recognize that malaria is an illness. The same goes for a zillion other illnesses. We do not know what causes them, in order to know that they're illness.
The same goes for mental illnesses. Clearly, some people are obviously mentally ill, and that assessment does not require us to know what caused the illness.

None of the above is crucial to the matter at hand, though, and while having an answer might help, if you're only going to reply to a small part of what I say, I would ask you to please focus on what follows - which probably will help more -, not on what is above.

Even if we go with the procedure you offer, we need to have a means to assess whether something went wrong during her development, and given your reply about objective mental illness, it seems that you believe there is objective going wrong.
In fact, condintions are illnesses - including mental illnesses - even before their causes are known. But you accept that there is objective mental illness. Yet, you deny that there is objective morality. Do you base that distinction on a relevant difference that you know about, or are you making intuitive assessments, even if you do not know the basis for them?

Let me make a parallel: homosexuality as a mental illness, and gay sex as always immoral.

Some people disagree about whether gay sex is always immoral. Some people also disagree about whether homosexuality is a mental illness. We do not know the causes of homosexuality by the way. Why do you believe that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness, but there is no objective fact of the matter as to whether gay sex is always immoral?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Because mental illness implies that there's something negative about it, as opposed to simply something different. You might as well just say that having a genius level intelligence is a mental illness.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because mental illness implies that there's something negative about it, as opposed to simply something different.

What question is that supposed to address?

You might as well just say that having a genius level intelligence is a mental illness.

No, it's not the case I might as well say that, since that is not in any way implied or suggested by anything I said.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What question is that supposed to address?

You might as well just say that having a genius level intelligence is a mental illness.

No, it's not the case I might as well say that, since that is not in any way implied or suggested by anything I said.

In order for something to be classified as a mental illness, it must cause some sort of impairment or suffering. Regardless of how it comes about, it's lack of doing those mean it's invalid to use the term to describe it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What question is that supposed to address?

No, it's not the case I might as well say that, since that is not in any way implied or suggested by anything I said.

In order for something to be classified as a mental illness, it must cause some sort of impairment or suffering. Regardless of how it comes about, it's lack of doing those mean it's invalid to use the term to describe it.

Even if that is true (likely, at least under some understanding of "impairment"), it presents no problem for anything I said.

Also, I would like to ask again what question "Because mental illness implies that there's something negative about it, as opposed to simply something different." is supposed to address. I don't know how to reply to that part of your post if you don't let me know what part of my post you're replying to. The "Because" indicates you're probably replying to a "why" question, but I didn't ask any question whose reply might even be approached by your sentence, as far as I can tell.

 

[dx713]

Mental problems (or differences), to be recognized as an illness, must impede the patient life.
That's how modern psychiatry works, and, in my mind, that's how it should be, or you end imposing your idea of normalcy on other people, with all the inconvenience it can lead them to (psychiatric treatment generally aren't easy).

Now it means that with a totally relative morality, different societies can have different standards of mental illness: for instance, in a society where homosexuality can lead to death, homosexuality can be considered a mental illness.
But subjective morality doesn't mean totally relative. It just means it's up to the people to discuss and agree on a set of morals. Different societies can (and should) call out the others on morals that are not reasonnable.
To continue on the example, basic application of the golden rule shows that homosexual relationships, being a victimless crime (in the societies that condemn them), shouldn't be a crime in the first place, and so considering homosexuality an illness is not reasonnable. While on the other hand, it is reasonnable to consider uncontrolled pedophilia as an illness, as pedophilia is really a crime, with a victim, and a person with such compulsions cannot stay in society without psychiatric help.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In order for something to be classified as a mental illness, it must cause some sort of impairment or suffering. Regardless of how it comes about, it's lack of doing those mean it's invalid to use the term to describe it.

Even if that is true (likely, at least under some understanding of "impairment"), it presents no problem for anything I said.

Also, I would like to ask again what question "Because mental illness implies that there's something negative about it, as opposed to simply something different." is supposed to address. I don't know how to reply to that part of your post if you don't let me know what part of my post you're replying to. The "Because" indicates you're probably replying to a "why" question, but I didn't ask any question whose reply might even be approached by your sentence, as far as I can tell.

Well, how is it that you feel that homosexuals are impaired compared to straights? If you're going to use the term "mental illness", then you should have an understanding of what that word means. I just don't see how your usage of the term for homosexuality separates it from introvertedness, left-handedness or being a red-head.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, even so, but I'm asking why the cause has to be a failure or something.

You asked if i would classify homosexuality as an illness and how i would do so.

A definition of illness is: "a specific condition that prevents your body or mind from working normally."
I don't know that homosexuality isn't a normal condition. I'd have to know what causes it. If it's part of the 'normal' spectrum, it likely isn't an illness.

Still, this is a side issue. The more important points in my post are the ones you didn't address. If you had, I would have continued with the parallel between mental illness on one hand, and immorality on the other, but using information about your beliefs that I do not have.

Until we get on the same wavelength with this part of the issue, i see no reason to continue with your analogy. You suggested i was treating homosexuality as a special case ,but i'm trying hard not to.

The point is that causes do not seem decisive: a zillion different causes possibly result in illnesses, and even uncaused entities are possibly ill - or healthy.

THe point is that if you're going to label something an 'illness' you have to have some sort of framework to establish that it's an illness. I would choose 'not normal function' of the body or mind.
Is there another framework?

For blindness, we know, or think we know, the 'normal function' of an eye. So, no, we don't need to know the cause because we can measure the failure in the function.

I don't know the 'normal' function of human sexuality.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Even if that is true (likely, at least under some understanding of "impairment"), it presents no problem for anything I said.

Also, I would like to ask again what question "Because mental illness implies that there's something negative about it, as opposed to simply something different." is supposed to address. I don't know how to reply to that part of your post if you don't let me know what part of my post you're replying to. The "Because" indicates you're probably replying to a "why" question, but I didn't ask any question whose reply might even be approached by your sentence, as far as I can tell.

Well, how is it that you feel that homosexuals are impaired compared to straights? If you're going to use the term "mental illness", then you should have an understanding of what that word means. I just don't see how your usage of the term for homosexuality separates it from introvertedness, left-handedness or being a red-head.

I don't claim that homosexuals are impaired compared to straight. I know what "mental illness" means.
My point is that there are people who disagree about whether homosexuality is a mental illness. And - for that matter - there are people who would say that homosexuality is an impairment, since homosexuals have an impaired sexual attraction - the non-impaired one would be straight sexual attraction.
I'm not saying that that is the case. Some people do. Some other people deny it. Others take no stance.
And some people also say that gay sex is always immoral. Others say otherwise. Others take no stance.
I'm asking Keith&Co why he believes that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether homosexuality is a mental illness, but not about whether gay sex is always immoral.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You asked if i would classify homosexuality as an illness and how i would do so.

A definition of illness is: "a specific condition that prevents your body or mind from working normally."
I don't know that homosexuality isn't a normal condition. I'd have to know what causes it. If it's part of the 'normal' spectrum, it likely isn't an illness.

Given that definition, if it's part of the normal spectrum, then it isn't an illness.
But that is not a central issue. You accept that there is a fact of the matter as to whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness, and about whether or not it's part of the 'normal' spectrum, etc., right?
But why wouldn't you think that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether gay sex is always immoral? Do you think there is a relevant different you can identify, objectivity-wise, or are you making an intuitive assessment without knowing where the relevant difference (if any) might lie?

Until we get on the same wavelength with this part of the issue, i see no reason to continue with your analogy.

Okay, then, we will very likely not be able to continue. I do not have a lot more time to spend trying to get on the same wavelength on this side issue, especially after trying hard to do so, with no success. In any case, success on that matter proved elusive so far.

You suggested i was treating homosexuality as a special case ,but i'm trying hard not to.

No, I didn't - or at least, I didn't mean to do that, though I guess you might be treating it as a special case (if you really think that developmental issues are crucial in the end), and if so, perhaps some of my points (which are true) suggested so. In any case, that's not what I was trying to point out in that part of my posts, but rather, challenge some of your claims (but as a side issue).

I did point out that causes are not generally required for there to be an illness (at least, not developmental causes, which is what you were focusing on), and that knowing the causes when there are causes, is generally not required for ascertaining whether there is an illness. But I grant that in some difficult cases, perhaps knowing the causes is a good way to figure out whether it's an illness.

In any case, homosexuality and gay sex were merely examples (i.e., the issues of whether one of them is an illness and whether the other is always immoral) I offered to illustrate a point.

What I suggested wasn't that you were treating homosexuality as a special case, but that you were treating mental illness and morality differently, and I was trying to find out what the reasons were, if any. I thought the parallel between homosexuality and gay sex might resonate because we're talking about disagreement about closely related things, but we may just leave the two aside and pick any two others.

For example, we may compare the issues of whether left-handedness is an illness and whether first-trimester abortion is always immoral. Why do you think there is an objective fact of the matter on the former, but not the latter?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

]Mental problems (or differences), to be recognized as an illness, must impede the patient life.
That's how modern psychiatry works, and, in my mind, that's how it should be, or you end imposing your idea of normalcy on other people, with all the inconvenience it can lead them to (psychiatric treatment generally aren't easy).

A psychopathic dictator would have a mental illness even if his life is in no way impeded and he gets away with anything.
But that's a side issue.

Now it means that with a totally relative morality, different societies can have different standards of mental illness: for instance, in a society where homosexuality can lead to death, homosexuality can be considered a mental illness.
But subjective morality doesn't mean totally relative. It just means it's up to the people to discuss and agree on a set of morals. Different societies can (and should) call out the others on morals that are not reasonnable.

I've never seen that usage of "subjective". If that is what you mean by "subjective", then you're not using "subjective" in any way theists who make metaethical arguments do.

To continue on the example, basic application of the golden rule shows that homosexual relationships, being a victimless crime (in the societies that condemn them), shouldn't be a crime in the first place, and so considering homosexuality an illness is not reasonnable. While on the other hand, it is reasonnable to consider uncontrolled pedophilia as an illness, as pedophilia is really a crime, with a victim, and a person with such compulsions cannot stay in society without psychiatric help.

Child abuse has a victim. Pedophilia per se (i.e., being predominantly or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent individuals) has no victim. But if someone is a pedophile who doesn't sexually abuse children and instead just fantasizes about sex with children, watches porn involving computer-generated images of children (of his own making, if you like), etc, he still has a mental illness.

But that's a side issue here. The main issue is that you're not using "subjective" in any of the ways that might be relevant when it comes to theistic metaethical arguments (i.e., any of the ways in which theists who make those arguments use it).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't claim that homosexuals are impaired compared to straight. I know what "mental illness" means.
My point is that there are people who disagree about whether homosexuality is a mental illness. And - for that matter - there are people who would say that homosexuality is an impairment, since homosexuals have an impaired sexual attraction - the non-impaired one would be straight sexual attraction.
I'm not saying that that is the case. Some people do. Some other people deny it. Others take no stance.
And some people also say that gay sex is always immoral. Others say otherwise. Others take no stance.
I'm asking Keith&Co why he believes that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether homosexuality is a mental illness, but not about whether gay sex is always immoral.

But it is an objective fact about whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness. Those who claim it is are as wrong as those who claim that the Honda Civic isn't a car because it's made by the Japanese and only Americans make real cars. The word "car" has an actual meaning and and if someone is using the word wrong then their mistaken definition leads them to be wrong about what that word applies to. It's the same with mental illness. The term has an actual meaning and if someone is using it wrong then their mistaken definition leads them to be wrong about what that word applies to.

Somebody mistakenly thinking that the Japanese can't make cars doesn't alter the objective fact that the Honda Civic is a car. Similarly, somebody thinking that homosexuality is an impairment doesn't change the fact that there's nothing about homosexuality itself which impairs one's life or causes suffering.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't claim that homosexuals are impaired compared to straight. I know what "mental illness" means.
My point is that there are people who disagree about whether homosexuality is a mental illness. And - for that matter - there are people who would say that homosexuality is an impairment, since homosexuals have an impaired sexual attraction - the non-impaired one would be straight sexual attraction.
I'm not saying that that is the case. Some people do. Some other people deny it. Others take no stance.
And some people also say that gay sex is always immoral. Others say otherwise. Others take no stance.
I'm asking Keith&Co why he believes that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether homosexuality is a mental illness, but not about whether gay sex is always immoral.

But it is an objective fact about whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness. Those who claim it is are as wrong as those who claim that the Honda Civic isn't a car because it's made by the Japanese and only Americans make real cars. The word "car" has an actual meaning and and if someone is using the word wrong then their mistaken definition leads them to be wrong about what that word applies to. It's the same with mental illness. The term has an actual meaning and if someone is using it wrong then their mistaken definition leads them to be wrong about what that word applies to.

Somebody mistakenly thinking that the Japanese can't make cars doesn't alter the objective fact that the Honda Civic is a car. Similarly, somebody thinking that homosexuality is an impairment doesn't change the fact that there's nothing about homosexuality itself which impairs one's life or causes suffering.

Well, they think that homosexual orientation itself is the impairment in the first place, but that's a side issue. The point is, you hold that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether homosexual orientation is an impairment. Do you think there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether gay sex is always immoral? If you think not, then is there any reason you can point out for the difference in your assessment of objectivity, or is it an intuitive assessment you cannot give a further reason for?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, they think that homosexual orientation itself is the impairment in the first place, but that's a side issue. The point is, you hold that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether homosexual orientation is an impairment. Do you think there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether gay sex is always immoral? If you think not, then is there any reason you can point out for the difference in your assessment of objectivity, or is it an intuitive assessment you cannot give a further reason for?

Well, that's a separate issue because you're talking about an action and the morality of actions is always based on subjective opinion. There's nothing about gay sex which makes it inherently immoral beyond the fact of some people not liking gay sex. If somebody holds to the position that "Sex is solely for the purpose of procreation" then gay sex would always be seen as immoral to them. That's entirely subjective, however.