Glad to hear I succeeded in describing my points more clearly and that we are in agreement. However since we are all individuals and also members of our communities, I would put moral and ethical standards on (nearly) equal footing. Where the two disagree is a focal point of (potential) internal or external conflict and so are often the subject of threads in the Forum.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 3:53 amI seem to have misunderstood what you're saying, for which I apologise.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 29th, 2020, 7:07 pm
Don't sell us so short. I'll give it one more try:
Slavery (or any other potential issue) can be measured on the morality scale, as you say: "what we think is - morally right or wrong". You and I (and hopefully everyone else) agree this is a subjective measure. IOW "Right" and "Wrong" are subjective.
Slavery can also be measured on the ethical scale, that is: does it conform to the ethical standard of the community. While that standard is a composite of subjective opinions, the fact that these opinions can be tabulated, makes the standard objective. Just as other opinions (in the minority) are objectively less popular. Thus measuring slavery on the ethical scale is objective. ""Conforms" and "Violates" are objective terms.
My concern is the nature of moral judgements - what is morally right or wrong - and why they are subjective, by definition, and can't be objective.
If by 'ethics' you mean the study of what people think is morally right or wrong, and if and how they rank behaviour on a moral scale, then ethical claims are, of course, objective - matters of fact, independent from opinion, with truth-value.
I'd guess we agree about this.
Is morality objective or subjective?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Oh. I think this is where we're not using the words 'objective' and 'subjective' ib the same way. Unless I'm mistaken, you associate the moral and the individual with subjectivity, and the ethical and the collective with objectivity. And I don't think that correlation is correct.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 4:11 pmGlad to hear I succeeded in describing my points more clearly and that we are in agreement. However since we are all individuals and also members of our communities, I would put moral and ethical standards on (nearly) equal footing. Where the two disagree is a focal point of (potential) internal or external conflict and so are often the subject of threads in the Forum.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 3:53 am
I seem to have misunderstood what you're saying, for which I apologise.
My concern is the nature of moral judgements - what is morally right or wrong - and why they are subjective, by definition, and can't be objective.
If by 'ethics' you mean the study of what people think is morally right or wrong, and if and how they rank behaviour on a moral scale, then ethical claims are, of course, objective - matters of fact, independent from opinion, with truth-value.
I'd guess we agree about this.
The distinction that matters here is between independence from opinion (objectivity), and dependence on opinion (subjectivity). And that cuts completely across the individual / collective distinction. There's no relationship between the two classifications. And that's the point of my OP.
So a moral opinion held by everyone in the world would still be an opinion, and therefore subjective - a matter of judgement. And a true factual assertion is true (a fact) even if no one believes it - its truth is independent of opinion and therefore objective.
Given this, to 'put moral and ethical standards on (nearly) equal footing' is conceptually confused. That a group adopts a moral code, with rules for behaviour - and the code itself - could be facts - features of reality that exist independent of opinion, and therefore objective. And a code adopted by an individual would similarly be a matter of fact, and could conflict with the group rules. In your terms, this would be a conflict between individual and collective ethical standards - an objective matter.
But the question of what actually is morally right or wrong isn't an objective matter at all.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Hhmmm... I don't believe I used the words "objective" or "subjective" once in my post. I was describing my opinion on the relative importance of individual and collective codes of conduct.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 31st, 2020, 7:32 amOh. I think this is where we're not using the words 'objective' and 'subjective' ib the same way. Unless I'm mistaken, you associate the moral and the individual with subjectivity, and the ethical and the collective with objectivity. And I don't think that correlation is correct.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 4:11 pm
Glad to hear I succeeded in describing my points more clearly and that we are in agreement. However since we are all individuals and also members of our communities, I would put moral and ethical standards on (nearly) equal footing. Where the two disagree is a focal point of (potential) internal or external conflict and so are often the subject of threads in the Forum.
The distinction that matters here is between independence from opinion (objectivity), and dependence on opinion (subjectivity). And that cuts completely across the individual / collective distinction. There's no relationship between the two classifications. And that's the point of my OP.
So a moral opinion held by everyone in the world would still be an opinion, and therefore subjective - a matter of judgement. And a true factual assertion is true (a fact) even if no one believes it - its truth is independent of opinion and therefore objective.
Given this, to 'put moral and ethical standards on (nearly) equal footing' is conceptually confused. That a group adopts a moral code, with rules for behaviour - and the code itself - could be facts - features of reality that exist independent of opinion, and therefore objective. And a code adopted by an individual would similarly be a matter of fact, and could conflict with the group rules. In your terms, this would be a conflict between individual and collective ethical standards - an objective matter.
But the question of what actually is morally right or wrong isn't an objective matter at all.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Sorry, I was referring to you previous post and assuming a connection. You wrote this:
'Slavery can also be measured on the ethical scale, that is: does it conform to the ethical standard of the community. While that standard is a composite of subjective opinions, the fact that these opinions can be tabulated, makes the standard objective. Just as other opinions (in the minority) are objectively less popular. Thus measuring slavery on the ethical scale is objective. ""Conforms" and "Violates" are objective terms.'
Again, if I've misunderstood your argument, I apologise.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Ok, I'll address your (preferred) angle on the topic of the subjectivity vs objectivity of moral vs ethical standards. To my mind it depends on the perspective of the observation. In your descriptions you are taking the third person perspective, as one would naturally when commenting in our actual capacity as outside observer. That is: one person's opinion makes morality and multiple person's opinions make ethical standards. Both subjective. Simple enough and I don't necessarily disagree.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑January 31st, 2020, 7:32 amOh. I think this is where we're not using the words 'objective' and 'subjective' ib the same way. Unless I'm mistaken, you associate the moral and the individual with subjectivity, and the ethical and the collective with objectivity. And I don't think that correlation is correct.LuckyR wrote: ↑January 30th, 2020, 4:11 pm
Glad to hear I succeeded in describing my points more clearly and that we are in agreement. However since we are all individuals and also members of our communities, I would put moral and ethical standards on (nearly) equal footing. Where the two disagree is a focal point of (potential) internal or external conflict and so are often the subject of threads in the Forum.
The distinction that matters here is between independence from opinion (objectivity), and dependence on opinion (subjectivity). And that cuts completely across the individual / collective distinction. There's no relationship between the two classifications. And that's the point of my OP.
So a moral opinion held by everyone in the world would still be an opinion, and therefore subjective - a matter of judgement. And a true factual assertion is true (a fact) even if no one believes it - its truth is independent of opinion and therefore objective.
Given this, to 'put moral and ethical standards on (nearly) equal footing' is conceptually confused. That a group adopts a moral code, with rules for behaviour - and the code itself - could be facts - features of reality that exist independent of opinion, and therefore objective. And a code adopted by an individual would similarly be a matter of fact, and could conflict with the group rules. In your terms, this would be a conflict between individual and collective ethical standards - an objective matter.
But the question of what actually is morally right or wrong isn't an objective matter at all.
OTOH, that is not how actual life decisions are made. When observed from the perspective of said individual, morality is unchanged: "is this or that right or wrong?" Purely subjective as noted. However, when the individual is making the decision if this or that action conforms to or violates his community's ethical standard, that standard is already known, it is not a judgement call made on the fly. In that sense it is not dissimilar to "legal" vs "illegal". The laws are already on the books. You are taking the perspective of describing the process of the legislature in lawmaking and one could rightly argue that votes in the congress are at their core subjective since they are legal opinions. But that is invisible to the citizen on the street deciding to drive the speed limit or not. The speed limit is objectively 55 mph.
-
- Posts: 562
- Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I don't think 'the perspective of the observation' has the slightest bearing on the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity - because the whole point of objectivity is its independence from opinion or observational perspective. That the speed limit is 55mph is a fact, and therefore objective. But that the speed limit should be 55mph was a (collective) judgement and decision, and therefore subjective.
But I think I follow your way of thinking about it.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I don't actually agree that "The speed limit if 55" is an objective fact. There are objective facts that there are signs with writing on them that read "Speed Limit 55" or that there is text written in books of legal code, etc., that say something like "The speed limit is 55," but that doesn't amount to it being an objective fact that the speed limit is 55, because for one, without any semantic content, we're just talking about marks on pieces of metal, marks on pieces of paper, etc.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2020, 8:01 am Fine. I don't think we're disagreeing in any material way.
I don't think 'the perspective of the observation' has the slightest bearing on the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity - because the whole point of objectivity is its independence from opinion or observational perspective. That the speed limit is 55mph is a fact, and therefore objective. But that the speed limit should be 55mph was a (collective) judgement and decision, and therefore subjective.
But I think I follow your way of thinking about it.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Are you trying to play a lame semantic trick? Better wording would be "the legal limit for vehicle travel on the highway is 55 mph". If less lazy wording doesn't get you to the "objective fact" criteria, I'd have to ask you, is it an objective fact that anything violates the law, or is illegal?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 7:44 pmI don't actually agree that "The speed limit if 55" is an objective fact. There are objective facts that there are signs with writing on them that read "Speed Limit 55" or that there is text written in books of legal code, etc., that say something like "The speed limit is 55," but that doesn't amount to it being an objective fact that the speed limit is 55, because for one, without any semantic content, we're just talking about marks on pieces of metal, marks on pieces of paper, etc.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑February 2nd, 2020, 8:01 am Fine. I don't think we're disagreeing in any material way.
I don't think 'the perspective of the observation' has the slightest bearing on the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity - because the whole point of objectivity is its independence from opinion or observational perspective. That the speed limit is 55mph is a fact, and therefore objective. But that the speed limit should be 55mph was a (collective) judgement and decision, and therefore subjective.
But I think I follow your way of thinking about it.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
'Objective' may apply to the contents of a given frame of reference, and it may apply to existence itself. The word 'objective' is the adjectival form of 'object'. Examples of metaphysical objects are a) God , b) existence itself. There may be other metaphysical objects I can't think of any .
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Sigh. No. I'm talking about ontology.LuckyR wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 2:45 amAre you trying to play a lame semantic trick?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 7:44 pm
I don't actually agree that "The speed limit if 55" is an objective fact. There are objective facts that there are signs with writing on them that read "Speed Limit 55" or that there is text written in books of legal code, etc., that say something like "The speed limit is 55," but that doesn't amount to it being an objective fact that the speed limit is 55, because for one, without any semantic content, we're just talking about marks on pieces of metal, marks on pieces of paper, etc.
No. It's not an objective fact that anything violates the law or is illegal. For that to be an objective fact, it has to obtain in the extramental world. But the extramental world "doesn't know from 'illegal.'" That something is illegal is a way that we think about particular behavior, and of course subsequently act in response to it should pertinent people catch someone doing something illegal.Better wording would be "the legal limit for vehicle travel on the highway is 55 mph". If less lazy wording doesn't get you to the "objective fact" criteria, I'd have to ask you, is it an objective fact that anything violates the law, or is illegal?
Again, the fact that we have code (as in books of laws--so textual codification of laws) isn't sufficient, because objectively, that code doesn't amount to more than text marks on paper, or pixels on a computer screen etc. There is no semantic content to it (no meaning), because that's not something that obtains extramentally.
This is an ontological argument, about where particular phenomena are located in the world.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I use "objective" to refer to extramental. You could use the term otherwise, but the only way to get it to do the work that people want it to do is if when we talk about "objective" things, we're talking about extramental facts. Anything else isn't going to do the work that people want done.Belindi wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 8:03 am A fact such as the speed limit, or the existence of a road sign, is objective within the frame of customary road signage and the local laws.
'Objective' may apply to the contents of a given frame of reference, and it may apply to existence itself. The word 'objective' is the adjectival form of 'object'. Examples of metaphysical objects are a) God , b) existence itself. There may be other metaphysical objects I can't think of any .
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Road signs, local laws, God, and existence itself are each of them mind independent and mind dependent according to which theory of mind you subscribe to.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 10:03 amI use "objective" to refer to extramental. You could use the term otherwise, but the only way to get it to do the work that people want it to do is if when we talk about "objective" things, we're talking about extramental facts. Anything else isn't going to do the work that people want done.Belindi wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 8:03 am A fact such as the speed limit, or the existence of a road sign, is objective within the frame of customary road signage and the local laws.
'Objective' may apply to the contents of a given frame of reference, and it may apply to existence itself. The word 'objective' is the adjectival form of 'object'. Examples of metaphysical objects are a) God , b) existence itself. There may be other metaphysical objects I can't think of any .
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
?? You could just say that everything is everything else or nothing else, everything is the case of not the case depending on what theory one subscribes to. The point of which would be I guess to state the obvious that different people have different views.Belindi wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 5:37 amRoad signs, local laws, God, and existence itself are each of them mind independent and mind dependent according to which theory of mind you subscribe to.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 4th, 2020, 10:03 am
I use "objective" to refer to extramental. You could use the term otherwise, but the only way to get it to do the work that people want it to do is if when we talk about "objective" things, we're talking about extramental facts. Anything else isn't going to do the work that people want done.
Minds are identical to brains functioning in particular ways. Road signs are not in brains. The meaning of road signs, the idea of laws, etc. are. Outside of brains, the marks in legal books of code, road signs, etc. have no meaning.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
But there is a finite number of theories of mind.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:14 am?? You could just say that everything is everything else or nothing else, everything is the case of not the case depending on what theory one subscribes to. The point of which would be I guess to state the obvious that different people have different views.
Minds are identical to brains functioning in particular ways. Road signs are not in brains. The meaning of road signs, the idea of laws, etc. are. Outside of brains, the marks in legal books of code, road signs, etc. have no meaning.
1. Mind is a separate substance from body(brain)
2. Mind and brain are identical
3. Mind is an epiphenomenon
4. Mind and brain are two aspects of the same thing.
___________________________________
4. is the only theory of mind where road signs, local laws, God, and existence itself are both mind dependent and mind independent . Precisely and consequently , people who subscribe to the 4.(dual aspect ) theory of mind are the only people who can with reason believe road signs, local laws, God, and existence itself are both mind dependent and mind independent.
The implication for "Is morality subjective or objective?" is people who subscribe to 4.(dual aspect) theory of mind also if they are reasoning people believe any individual's sense of morality is both subjective and objective.
I say "sense of morality". It is nonsense that morality even exists without individual conscious animals.
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