Is morality objective or subjective?
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Thanks for those kind thoughts. I'll never stop missing him terribly.
Again, I have to disagree - and this is not to be picky. The assertion 'torture is wrong' is neither true nor false, full stop - because it's a value judgement. So the a priori / a posteriori distinction is irrelevant. What do you think could make it true a priori or a posteriori? What moral facts or truths are there of any kind? Can you suggest one that qualifies - that isn't a value judgement?
As it happens, I think it's confusing to talk about the truth - objective or absolute - of formal sign systems. Their assertions are tautologies. 2+2=4 is just correct within the rules. What could falsify it?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Of course the axiom is that life is good. This is not objectively true, as far as I can figure.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I think you've floored your own suggestion. The point is, 'Life' isn't a moral assertion.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 11:11 am Eduk
I think you've floored your own suggestion. The point is, 'Life' isn't a moral assertion.
No, but
is quite good knife to cut with.what is existentially bad for life.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Every proposition is or contains a value judgement. There is no proposition of any kind that is not subjective to some degree with the exception which I already mentioned of maths and formal logic which are a priori, and therefore tautologies, or circular, as you say.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 8:35 am Belindi
Thanks for those kind thoughts. I'll never stop missing him terribly.
Again, I have to disagree - and this is not to be picky. The assertion 'torture is wrong' is neither true nor false, full stop - because it's a value judgement. So the a priori / a posteriori distinction is irrelevant. What do you think could make it true a priori or a posteriori? What moral facts or truths are there of any kind? Can you suggest one that qualifies - that isn't a value judgement?
As it happens, I think it's confusing to talk about the truth - objective or absolute - of formal sign systems. Their assertions are tautologies. 2+2=4 is just correct within the rules. What could falsify it?
You said, Peter, that Hume's observation about the problem of induction is irrelevant. I believe that the problem of induction is relevant to the questions of how we cannot possibly know if any proposition is objectively true or not.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Can you explain why the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' contains a value judgement, and is therefore subjective to some degree? And - to what degree?
I know our choice of words is arbitrary and purely conventional - and so subjective. But having fixed the meanings, we're just following rules. And I know we value facts. But that we value facts doesn't mean that facts are values.
I'll get back to induction when I have time - not ignoring that point.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I don't know to what degree the proposition contains a value judgement. I do claim that without the value judgement of the worthiness of the scientific theory, i.e. astronomy or something, the proposition would not make sense.
That the Earth orbits the Sun is not a free standing claim but is part of the structure of the science as a whole. There are bits of evidence that accord with the proposition and those are needed too sine qua non.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Examples of objective descriptors are hot, or tall, or heavy, or fast. As we all know morality and ethics deal with subjective measures such as fair, valuable, cruel, painful, not to mention extremely vague terms such as good and evil.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
But hot, tall, heavy, fast, are relative to the observer and to other variables. Same as what we conventionally name moral terms such as fair, valuable, cruel , painful are relative to the observer and to other variables.LuckyR wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 2:33 pm All descriptors are either subjective or objective. Morality and ethics, as it happens deals with issues that happen to be subjective, hence why morality is ultimately subjective.
Examples of objective descriptors are hot, or tall, or heavy, or fast. As we all know morality and ethics deal with subjective measures such as fair, valuable, cruel, painful, not to mention extremely vague terms such as good and evil.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Ah, but while you can taller or shorter than me, your measurement is along a linear scale, say of cm. Say you are 163. My position can also be noted and a comparison made... or not, you are still 163 cm. However, fairness is commonly also attempted to be measured on a linear scale, but since the definition of what fairness is (unlike the universally understood meaning of height), varies dramatically, fairness is actually measured along a set of linear scales, not a single one (depending on the definition of what constitutes fairness).Belindi wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 2:43 pmBut hot, tall, heavy, fast, are relative to the observer and to other variables. Same as what we conventionally name moral terms such as fair, valuable, cruel , painful are relative to the observer and to other variables.LuckyR wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 2:33 pm All descriptors are either subjective or objective. Morality and ethics, as it happens deals with issues that happen to be subjective, hence why morality is ultimately subjective.
Examples of objective descriptors are hot, or tall, or heavy, or fast. As we all know morality and ethics deal with subjective measures such as fair, valuable, cruel, painful, not to mention extremely vague terms such as good and evil.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Natural desires or needs are inherent to our human nature, while acquired desires or wants differ from individual to individual, due to temperament, upbringing, etc. Whatever we actually need is really good for us, there are no wrong needs. If this were not true, if natural needs were not common to all human beings at all times and under all circumstances, we would have no basis for a global doctrine that calls for the protection of human rights.
In contrast, acquired desires are only apparent goods, or as Spinoza put it, they appear good to us simply because we desire them. If all goods were merely apparent, than right and wrong would be merely subjective and relative, all moral judgements would be mere opinions, and "might makes right" would become the ruling paradigm, as it has among modern moral subjectivists.
Once you've made the essential distinction between natural and acquired desires (needs and wants), and real and merely apparent goods, you can arrive at the self evident truth that we ought to desire what is really good for us, which is the same for all human beings. By taking this first principle and adding to it descriptive truths about human nature, you can arrive at prescriptive truths, i.e., an objective moral code. Aristotle explains this succinctly in Book VI of his Nicomachean Ethics, you may want to refer to it.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Aristotle was wrong about this. And Hume nailed the mistake.
Your equivocation with the word 'good' is revealing. We have natural needs, such as food, clothes and shelter. And it's common to call those things 'goods'. But to say 'whatever we actually need is really good for us, there are no wrong needs' slips over to a different meaning - which is what Aristotle does. From which it's a short step to the moral use of 'good'. That we need those things is a fact. But the claim that we and others should have those things is a value judgement, which is subjective.
Your (and Aristotle's) confusion is evident in what you say here:
'If all goods were merely apparent, than [sic] right and wrong would be merely subjective and relative, all moral judgements would be mere opinions, and "might makes right" would become the ruling paradigm, as it has among modern moral subjectivists.'
The equivocation on 'goods' - first meaning 'things we need', then implicitly meaning 'moral good', as in 'things that are right and not wrong' is glaring.
Aristotle provides no justification for the claim that morality is objective. And your standard conclusion that, if morality is subjective, 'right and wrong would be merely ... relative, all moral judgements would be mere opinions, and "might makes right" would become the ruling paradigm, as it has among modern moral subjectivists' is a mechanical repetition of an irrational - and in my opinion puerile - canard.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
And the irony is, that if there were moral facts, their source would be irrelevant, as it is for all factual assertions. There is no authority that can dictate what counts as a fact: this is a fact because I say it is. So moral objectivism precludes a god's moral authority, along with anyone else's. 'This is good because I say it is' doesn't wash.
And another irony is that moral subjectivism, which is correct, is entirely compatible with theism anyway. So a theistic insistence on objectivism is not only incorrect, because morality is subjective, but also a peculiar case of unwitting intellectual self-harm.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
No equivocation there, do I need to spell out in detail the obvious logic of those statements? Is your position that there are no right or wrong desires, or real and apparent goods, this is all merely subjective?Peter Holmes: The equivocation on 'goods' - first meaning 'things we need', then implicitly meaning 'moral good', as in 'things that are right and not wrong' is glaring.
Partly subjective, yes, but what isn't? Obviously our natural needs are the basis of our natural rights - our rights to the things we need to live good human lives. And it's not a command as to what people should have, only a statement of what is right to desire to have. The statement is self-evident because it is impossible for us to subscribe to the opposite view: that we should not desire what is really good for us, or desire what is really bad for us.That we need those things is a fact. But the claim that we and others should have those things is a value judgement, which is subjective.
Sure he did, he provided a clear exposition of it, you either have not read it or did not understand it. He explains how true prescriptive judgements will conform to right desires - desire for those things that we by nature need. Unlike Aristotle, Hume failed to see that both prescriptive and descriptive premises can be, and in fact must be, combined to reach objective moral conclusions.Aristotle provides no justification for the claim that morality is objective.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
1 The assertion that a desire is morally right or wrong is a judgement, not a falsifiable factual claim. If you disagree, please give an example.
2 You don't seem to understand the equivocation on the word 'good'. Please give an example of what you call a real good, and an example of what you call an apparent good. We can go on from there.
3 Our natural needs are objective, but 'natural rights' are not. Rights are things granted to people by decisions based on moral judgements.
4 In the assertion 'we should not desire what is really good for us, or desire what is really bad for us', the word 'should' is critical, because it indicates a judgement. You are still confusing values judgements with factual assertions, as does Aristotle.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023