Is morality objective or subjective?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

I must apologise for this recent post. I've made a mistake that I need to rectify. Sorry.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

The case against moral objectivism - version 2.

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.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sy Borg »

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.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belindi »

Greta, what you say is also subjective; you choose to base your opinion on naturalism. In the everlasting absence of omniscience, thinkers have to subjectively choose some ontological base.

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.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Felix »

Peter Holmes: 1. The word 'objective' means 'relying on facts rather than judgements'.
It does not, and from this extremely narrow definition, your faulty conclusions follow.

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.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Felix

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?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Gertie »

Felix
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…
I agree with all of that.

So could we also agree that the conscious experiencing of a Quality of Life ('welfare of conscious creatures') is the foundational basis for Oughts?
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.'
Partly, but we are also social beings, with more than a smattering of mattering,

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).
And this qualiative nature of conscious experience is therefore the appropriate foundation for Oughts.
First off, is that qualiative as in qualia (is that an accepted term?, the site spell check cries foul) or did you mean qualitative?
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.


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.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Gertie »

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.
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.

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).
anonymous66
Posts: 439
Joined: January 12th, 2018, 4:01 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by anonymous66 »

Peter Holmes wrote: July 6th, 2018, 6:16 am The key to answering this question...
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.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sy Borg »

anonymous66 wrote: July 23rd, 2018, 11:32 am Maybe this dialogue will help:
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.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Nice one, Greta. I wonder why this is so hard to grasp?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sy Borg »

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.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Burning ghost »

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.
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.

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.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Felix »

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
In what way are your judgments subjective, have you had no human social interaction since birth?
B: So when presented with a question about morality, you just flip a coin?

Greta: No, I make a subjective judgement
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: You do admit that you think that some things that people to do are immoral?

Greta: Of course, as stated, that is my opinion.
Have you not heard of the term "objective opinion"?
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.
Only if it is enlightened interaction, e.g., ants are quite interactive but we would not want to mimic their social practices.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sy Borg »

Burning ghost wrote: July 24th, 2018, 2:06 am
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.
Well, 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.
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.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021