Is morality objective or subjective?
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
1 The word 'objective' means 'relying on facts rather than judgements'. And a factual assertion makes a falsifiable claim about something - a claim that is true or false. What we call a 'fact' is merely a true factual assertion.
2 The claim that an assertion expressing a moral judgement - such as 'slavery is wrong' - is factual, means that all such assertions are factual. So the assertion 'slavery is right' is also factual.
3 To claim that the moral assertion 'slavery is wrong' is a fact - a true factual assertion - is merely to claim that the supposedly factual assertion 'slavery is wrong' is true. And to claim that the moral assertion 'slavery is right' is not a fact, is merely to claim that the supposedly factual assertion 'slavery is right' is false.
4 Moral objectivism is the claim that moral assertions make falsifiable factual claims about things - the 'objects' that supposedly make moral assertions objective. The absence of evidence for those things may not mean they don't exist. But it does mean that to believe they do exist is irrational.
I hope this is closer to being a coherent argument than my last useless attempt. And I'd be grateful for any comments or suggested improvements.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
These are all behaviours between protagonists in nature - seen in all manner of species - and these activities clearly present a challenge in group living. That is, groups that forbade these overtly destructive behaviours would have been more cohesive than less disciplined societies, and the former would have tended to out-compete the latter and proliferate somewhat more over time.
One would expect that in any given environment and prevailing culture there would be functionally optimal degrees of freedom and moral control. Societies that come closest to getting the balance right would tend to thrive most.
Also note how deep such sensibilities runs. Other mammals too have a sense of fairness, famously shown in the viral capuchin monkey video, where the monkey amusingly threw its rewards back at the handler when they were less than what was given to the monkey's neighbour for performing the same task. My dog has a fair idea of what is fair treatment or not too.
We, and not just humans, are all the products of so many generations of cooperative groups that prosocial impulses are effectively hardwired. That doesn't help when trying to consider the objectivity of morals since we are effectively born morally biased.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Peter's original question omits to say which question it is of the two "What exists?" or "How might we know what exists?"
I chose to address the question from the epistemological point of view " How can we know what exists?" . (My answer: "We cannot know.")However from the ontological point of view I'd agree with you that nature exists including natural causes of certain moral tenets, with the caveat that this is a faith position.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
It does not, and from this extremely narrow definition, your faulty conclusions follow.Peter Holmes: 1. The word 'objective' means 'relying on facts rather than judgements'.
Judgement is required to discern and interpret facts. An objective judgement is one that interprets the facts in an unbiased manner, i.e., a judgement that is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
What are the moral facts (not facts about human nature, etc) that demonstrate the truth of moral objectivism? (As you know, I don't accept Aristotle's idea of prescriptive truth - so there's reason for us to discuss that again. If you rest your case on them - fair enough.)
Can you show, in a nutshell, why your broader definition of 'objective' leads to your correct conclusion?
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I agree with all of that.Gertie: It is objectively true to say there are certain necessary and sufficient conditions for any conscious creature to have a Quality of Life. There are certain things which will generally help facilitate the experiencing of a good quality of life. And some which will generally be detrimental. Bu…
So could we also agree that the conscious experiencing of a Quality of Life ('welfare of conscious creatures') is the foundational basis for Oughts?
Partly, but we are also social beings, with more than a smattering of mattering,It is a fact of the matter that it's the inherently qualiative, first person, Subjective nature of conscious experience which brings meaning, value, desires, purpose and Mattering into a dead world of rocks and 'stuff.'
Sure, quality of life depends on lots of different types of components
which is why we need a more objective basis for morality. This is where prescriptive moral truths come in.
Here I think we need a bit more clarity. 'Need' and 'truth' are different.
The need part of your statement refers to how to best achieve our foundational guiding principle of the 'welfare of conscious creatures'.
Some ways of trying to achieve our 'moral goal' will work better than others, that's true, but that's an issue of utility, rather than referring to to some objectively existing 'moral truth', right? So yeah, we need to find some way of agreeing certain prescriptions are beneficial (useful in achieving our foundational goal) as a society. In the past we had Godly authority and revealed Truths which did the job. But now we need to think about it differently, as a way to come together and decide how best to ensure our welfare. (Via measures like laws and education, and concepts like democracy, rights, or whatever).
Good question! Both really. The phenomenal quality of conscious experience includes/is a pre-requiste for, states like pain, hunger, sadness, joy, contentment, caring for self and others, and so on. Things we care about, value, have meaning and matter.First off, is that qualiative as in qualia (is that an accepted term?, the site spell check cries foul) or did you mean qualitative?And this qualiative nature of conscious experience is therefore the appropriate foundation for Oughts.
The Objective/Subjective dichotomy helps us think about the key differences between experiential states - and 'stuff'. The inherent Quantitive/Qualiative, Public/Private differences. The public world of objective/third person falsifiable truth claims (out there), and the inner world of first person, private experience, which can't be empirically examined for truthiness, weighed and measured.
My claim is that qualities such as value, meaning and purpose, happiness and suffering, well-being and harm, lie in that subjective realm, and are the appropriate basis for Oughts. The foundation, our guiding principle, lies there.
Subjective individual wants/desire are of course the only appropriate basis for subjective Oughts, but we're seeking to establish an objective (or if you prefer, intersubjective) moral code, and therefore must go beyond our personal subjective desires to the needs that we all have in common, which are not merely subjective, and which are the necessary foundation for the realization of our human potential. These are the "real goods" (biological, social and aesthetic/spiritual) most essential to human health and welfare that we Ought to seek for the benefit of one and all. Once we have ascertained what these common needs are - most are fairly obvious - we may form a set of true prescriptive judgments about them.
In essence agreed. But I'd make the case differently -
The welfare of conscious creatures (Subjects) is the foundation for Oughts, because conscious creatures are capable of experiencing a quality of life.
We (conscious creatures) have many shared needs and desires, but as unique Subjects we also have differences, hence some degree of freedom and flexibility is an Ought too. And our methodologies (laws, customs, mores, teaching, archetypes, cultural narratives, leaders, etc) will never be perfect prescriptions (Moral Truths) for all cases. Which makes it all the more important to cohere around a foundational principle we can treat as axiomatic, to guide us in formulating them.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
That's a fair description of the IS of our evolutionary inheritance as a social species, but I think we can still get an OUGHT from this IS - if we consider the MATTERING of qualiative experience as conscious critters.Greta wrote: ↑July 23rd, 2018, 2:29 am I don't know, Peter. I am not a theist of any stripe but our physiology strikes me as bringing some objectivity to the moral situation. Our common humanity means that disparate cultures still have significant overlap in their moral mores - generally pertaining to killing, theft and assault. (In this context, slavery could be considered theft of a person's powers and it happens plenty in nature).
These are all behaviours between protagonists in nature - seen in all manner of species - and these activities clearly present a challenge in group living. That is, groups that forbade these overtly destructive behaviours would have been more cohesive than less disciplined societies, and the former would have tended to out-compete the latter and proliferate somewhat more over time.
One would expect that in any given environment and prevailing culture there would be functionally optimal degrees of freedom and moral control. Societies that come closest to getting the balance right would tend to thrive most.
Also note how deep such sensibilities runs. Other mammals too have a sense of fairness, famously shown in the viral capuchin monkey video, where the monkey amusingly threw its rewards back at the handler when they were less than what was given to the monkey's neighbour for performing the same task. My dog has a fair idea of what is fair treatment or not too.
We, and not just humans, are all the products of so many generations of cooperative groups that prosocial impulses are effectively hardwired. That doesn't help when trying to consider the objectivity of morals since we are effectively born morally biased.
We have a Quality of Life, because we're a species which (not uniquely) has conscious/experiential states. Hence it MATTERS if I do something (steal/murder/rape) which Harms you, because you're capable (as an experiencing conscious critter) of experiencing Harm - a diminishing of your quality of life.
Mattering is what Matters. Whether we categorise as Objective or Subjective, doesn't really Matter. As it happens, Mattering lies in the subjective realm of experiencing, meaning and value, because only experiencing Subjects 'generate' conscious experience, with its accompanying qualiative meaning and value. (Unlike a universe of dead rocks interacting according to the laws of physics, some will smash and some will aggregate, it doesn't matter, Oughts are irrelevant).
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: January 12th, 2018, 4:01 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Maybe this dialogue will help:
A: Is morality objective?
B: Yes
A: How do you know?
B: Because I know it is true that some things are moral and some thing are not... and so do you.
A: I don't make judgments about morality
B: So when presented with a question about morality, you just flip a coin?
A: Okay, well... I make a judgment, but I know my judgment is subjective
B: So when someone does something you think is immoral, you think to yourself, "He must have a different view of morality than I do"?
A: ummm.. I plead the fifth.
B: You do admit that you think that some things that people to do are immoral?
A: ummmm. I plead the fifth.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Some edits as I felt there was some straw padding within the above dialogue.
A: Is morality objective?
B: Yes
A: How do you know?
B: Because I know it is true that some things are moral and some thing are not... and so do you.
A: But I know my judgements are subjective
B: So when presented with a question about morality, you just flip a coin?
A: No, I make a subjective judgement
B: So when someone does something you think is immoral, you think to yourself, "He must have a different view of morality than I do"?
A: No, I'll probably think, "You bastard", but on reflection, yes, the person obviously subscribes to a different morality.
B: You do admit that you think that some things that people to do are immoral?
A: Of course, as stated, that is my opinion, thus subjective.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Well, not really. Slavery was part of, and is part, general life. We’ve learnt to manage it better and rather than taking aay freedom merely quashed it here and there. There are some freedoms you simply cannot take away from people.Greta wrote: ↑July 24th, 2018, 1:30 am Maybe because some mores - murder, assault, theft - are widespread enough so as to be universal for almost all practical means and purposes? Still, there was a time when most of humanity though slavery was no issue and a time when almost all women were treated as underlings, and in those instances almost everyone was wrong.
Also, historically slavery was accepted as a means to pay off debts. People would be a “slave” for a given period of time and return to being “free”. Rape, murder and theft are all, accept under extreme circumstances, objectively wrong and bad because anything that destroys civilization is “bad”. And if you argue against that then maybe you don’t regard the term “bad” as being a expression that exists only through social interaction.
My argument being that if we all decided to steal, rape and murder (basically ignore our conscience and play into more base instincts) then society woudl crumble and populations would plummet. This isn’t the case, and it is not the case in the animal kingdom either, because too much “bad” behavior will eventually destroy a species.
The more interactive a species the more they can adjust to and explore what is “bad” and “good” for the indivdual, the group, for now and in the future. It is objective in that sense and led by subjective exploration and limited by mistakes and how natural events disturb our course. We must necessarily move backward in order to understand which way we should go - through communicating and expressing our feelings we’re able to move foward (hopeful enough to counter our idiotic mistakes.)
Morality is not wholly a subjective or an objective matter. You can stretch out the whole idea of “objective” though and frame that as “intersubjectivity” if you wish to be overtly pedantic, but it doesn’t really do much to the greater picture.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
In what way are your judgments subjective, have you had no human social interaction since birth?A: (Is morality objective?) How do you know?
B: Because I know it is true that some things are moral and some thing are not... and so do you.
Greta: But I know my judgements are subjective
And you are incapable of making an objective judgement? Your "subjective" judgements are set in stone and can never change, i.e., become more or less objective?B: So when presented with a question about morality, you just flip a coin?
Greta: No, I make a subjective judgement
Have you not heard of the term "objective opinion"?B: You do admit that you think that some things that people to do are immoral?
Greta: Of course, as stated, that is my opinion.
Only if it is enlightened interaction, e.g., ants are quite interactive but we would not want to mimic their social practices.Burning ghost: The more interactive a species the more they can adjust to and explore what is “bad” and “good” for the individual, the group, for now and in the future.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I disagree. Aside from outlying extreme cases, the difference between slavery and economic servitude is profound. Consider the difference between the average employee and sexual slaves, kidnapped and forced into unpaid prostitution under fear for their lives.Burning ghost wrote: ↑July 24th, 2018, 2:06 amWell, not really. Slavery was part of, and is part, general life. We’ve learnt to manage it better and rather than taking away freedom merely quashed it here and there. There are some freedoms you simply cannot take away from people.Greta wrote: ↑July 24th, 2018, 1:30 am Maybe because some mores - murder, assault, theft - are widespread enough so as to be universal for almost all practical means and purposes? Still, there was a time when most of humanity though slavery was no issue and a time when almost all women were treated as underlings, and in those instances almost everyone was wrong.
2023/2024 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