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
User avatar
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?

Post by Terrapin Station »

chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
Hold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by chewybrian »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
Hold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?
The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence. You can't say that "the car is running" weighs so many pounds, or travels at such and such speed. This state of affairs is in a sense like your consciousness. Physical processes occur in your brain as you are having a certain thought, but the thought itself is not a physical component, but something else.

When you put your thoughts in the same box as blood cells or electrical impulses in your head, you reduce them to less than what they are in the process. Freedom is self-evident and always there, and inconsistent with your thoughts being physical. Not understanding exactly what is going on is part of the whole package. If we really understood things all the way through, then only one course of action would be prudent, and our freedom would melt away as we conformed to this path. Freedom is consistent with uncertainty, ambiguity and such. We can't simply accept meaning from outside, but must create it from within in order to be free. So, the inability to explain it all simply promotes the idea that the freedom is genuine.

The attempt to wrap up choices and thoughts with physical brain processes is an inauthentic denial of a freedom which can not be denied when you face reality squarely and honestly. It's there, like it or not, understand it or not. You are free, and if you say you are not, you are lying to yourself, or to me, or both. If you say you are free, on the other hand, then it follows that you are somehow more than the effect of prior physical causes.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
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?

Post by Terrapin Station »

chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 9:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
Hold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?
The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence.
What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sy Borg »

So what? "Physical" and "mental" are just labels. The division is pretty meaningless. The fact is that information and matter are inextricably coupled - one does not exist without the other, based on current verified knowledge. There's the stuff and there's the stuff's configuration.

Meanwhile, the notion that morality is objective is also just words that don't mean much because morality is only broadly agreed upon with cases that are so obvious, no discussion or labelling is necessary, eg. torture of children. With any other so-called moral issues such as women's rights, gay rights, foetal rights, whether it's okay to try to subvert democracy and install an dictatorship and even killing are all subject to furious disagreement. The only way to declare one of those issues an "objective moral" is the railroad significant portions of the population.

The fact is that people's morals on many issues differ massively.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Greta wrote: February 10th, 2021, 3:03 am So what? "Physical" and "mental" are just labels. The division is pretty meaningless. The fact is that information and matter are inextricably coupled - one does not exist without the other, based on current verified knowledge. There's the stuff and there's the stuff's configuration.

Meanwhile, the notion that morality is objective is also just words that don't mean much because morality is only broadly agreed upon with cases that are so obvious, no discussion or labelling is necessary, eg. torture of children. With any other so-called moral issues such as women's rights, gay rights, foetal rights, whether it's okay to try to subvert democracy and install an dictatorship and even killing are all subject to furious disagreement. The only way to declare one of those issues an "objective moral" is the railroad significant portions of the population.

The fact is that people's morals on many issues differ massively.
I agree with what you say about morality. But I think the cases where 'no discussion or labelling is necessary' need addressing squarely. You mention torturing children - and moral objectivists often go for 'raping babies just for fun' - rather disturbingly - as though rape (like torture) isn't obviously wicked enough.

It's fallacious, but the aim is to win an argument by shaming subjectivists: 'if you think there are no moral facts, then you must think that raping babies just for fun isn't necessarily morally wrong'. I've lost count of how often I've had this thrown at me. The supposed 'gotcha' follows inevitably: if there are no moral facts, there is and can be no basis for rational moral judgement.

(Meanwhile - the so-called mind-body problem is simply a consequence of taking the label 'mind' too seriously as the name for a non-physical substance. We can't stop using 'mental' words, but we can cure ourselves of the mentalism - 'meanings are in the mind' for example - that still befuddle us.)
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sy Borg »

Peter Holmes wrote: February 10th, 2021, 4:31 am
Greta wrote: February 10th, 2021, 3:03 am So what? "Physical" and "mental" are just labels. The division is pretty meaningless. The fact is that information and matter are inextricably coupled - one does not exist without the other, based on current verified knowledge. There's the stuff and there's the stuff's configuration.

Meanwhile, the notion that morality is objective is also just words that don't mean much because morality is only broadly agreed upon with cases that are so obvious, no discussion or labelling is necessary, eg. torture of children. With any other so-called moral issues such as women's rights, gay rights, foetal rights, whether it's okay to try to subvert democracy and install an dictatorship and even killing are all subject to furious disagreement. The only way to declare one of those issues an "objective moral" is to railroad significant portions of the population.

The fact is that people's morals on many issues differ massively.
I agree with what you say about morality. But I think the cases where 'no discussion or labelling is necessary' need addressing squarely. You mention torturing children - and moral objectivists often go for 'raping babies just for fun' - rather disturbingly - as though rape (like torture) isn't obviously wicked enough.

It's fallacious, but the aim is to win an argument by shaming subjectivists: 'if you think there are no moral facts, then you must think that raping babies just for fun isn't necessarily morally wrong'. I've lost count of how often I've had this thrown at me. The supposed 'gotcha' follows inevitably: if there are no moral facts, there is and can be no basis for rational moral judgement.

(Meanwhile - the so-called mind-body problem is simply a consequence of taking the label 'mind' too seriously as the name for a non-physical substance. We can't stop using 'mental' words, but we can cure ourselves of the mentalism - 'meanings are in the mind' for example - that still befuddle us.)
Issues like torture of innocents, rape etc are so obvious, we can reflexively consider them to be wrong and that's it. Other social species have obvious, instinctive rules too, albeit they tend to be a lot less fussy about morality than humans. That leaves issues where there is significant disagreement, as mentioned earlier.

As for your mind/brain comment, I will agree to disagree since it's a tad off-topic. I think minds are amongst the most significant and impressive aspects of reality, along with the galaxies, stars, black holes, planets and ecosystems from which minds ultimately have emerged with varying degrees of separation.
User avatar
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?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Greta wrote: February 10th, 2021, 3:03 am So what? "Physical" and "mental" are just labels. The division is pretty meaningless.
One "so what" here would be that if someone is using the word "physical" so unusually that processes aren't physical based on their usage, we'd need them to explain their unusual usage if there's any hope of being able to communicate with them.

Someone essentially saying "you're wrong that x is F because I use the term F extremely unusually and you don't" doesn't exactly amount to much of an argument. Unless it does because one uses the word "argument" very unusually. ;-)
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by chewybrian »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 9th, 2021, 11:21 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 9:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
Hold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?
The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence.
What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.
Applied to the actual world (our world), statement 1 above is the claim that physicalism is true at the actual world if and only if at every possible world in which the physical properties and laws of the actual world are instantiated, the non-physical (in the ordinary sense of the word) properties of the actual world are instantiated as well. To borrow a metaphor from Saul Kripke (1972), the truth of physicalism at the actual world entails that once God has instantiated or "fixed" the physical properties and laws of our world, then God's work is done; the rest comes "automatically".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Physicalism, determinism and fate are all wrapped up together. If you accept that everything is physical, then you have to take the whole package. The end result is that you don't exist in any meaningful way. You are simply an effect of the processes that have been set in motion.

I see that I am free at every moment. Therefore, I must conclude that physicalism is false. I can't work it down any simpler than that. Perhaps it seems odd to you, or implies that I must be advocating religion or magic or something. I'm only standing up for myself. I don't claim to understand how it works, but I am trying to accept reality as it presents.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by chewybrian »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 9th, 2021, 11:21 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 9:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 7:51 pm
In the case of the car, "the car is running" is a description of the effects of the processes at work, but it isn't really a thing in and of itself. You would not say (or at least I would not say) that the "runningness" of the car was a physical thing, but rather an effect.
Hold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?
The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence.
What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.
The process is physical, yes. But I am trying to peel away the top layer, which is the concept of what is happening, the observation, the understanding, the experience, the meaning, This part can only occur when the experiencer is there to experience it, and when their intent or will is focused upon the event. It is another kind of thing, lacking a physical presence. It is a part of me, which is not my body or my brain, but my understanding. This exists, it is real, but it is unlike any other aspect of the event.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sy Borg »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 10th, 2021, 6:09 am
Greta wrote: February 10th, 2021, 3:03 am So what? "Physical" and "mental" are just labels. The division is pretty meaningless.
One "so what" here would be that if someone is using the word "physical" so unusually that processes aren't physical based on their usage, we'd need them to explain their unusual usage if there's any hope of being able to communicate with them.

Someone essentially saying "you're wrong that x is F because I use the term F extremely unusually and you don't" doesn't exactly amount to much of an argument. Unless it does because one uses the word "argument" very unusually. ;-)
I'm not going there. I remember a thread where people debated what an object was and I arrived at the conversation with confidence and ended up in confusion. Ontology at fundamental levels of reality still does my head in. By all means carry on.
User avatar
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?

Post by Terrapin Station »

chewybrian wrote: February 10th, 2021, 6:16 am
Terrapin Station wrote: February 9th, 2021, 11:21 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2021, 9:18 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: February 9th, 2021, 8:33 pm

Hold on a minute. Let's clarify this first. Are you saying that a running car is or is not physical?
The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though. It is an effect of physical processes, a state of affairs, an observation. But, this state of affairs, the state itself, has no physical presence.
What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.
Applied to the actual world (our world), statement 1 above is the claim that physicalism is true at the actual world if and only if at every possible world in which the physical properties and laws of the actual world are instantiated, the non-physical (in the ordinary sense of the word) properties of the actual world are instantiated as well. To borrow a metaphor from Saul Kripke (1972), the truth of physicalism at the actual world entails that once God has instantiated or "fixed" the physical properties and laws of our world, then God's work is done; the rest comes "automatically".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Physicalism, determinism and fate are all wrapped up together. If you accept that everything is physical, then you have to take the whole package. The end result is that you don't exist in any meaningful way. You are simply an effect of the processes that have been set in motion.

I see that I am free at every moment. Therefore, I must conclude that physicalism is false. I can't work it down any simpler than that. Perhaps it seems odd to you, or implies that I must be advocating religion or magic or something. I'm only standing up for myself. I don't claim to understand how it works, but I am trying to accept reality as it presents.
What in the world? Your response here has nothing at all to do with the comment that "What you're writing here is extremely confused. 'Physical' doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical." And that is all that I wrote.
User avatar
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?

Post by Terrapin Station »

chewybrian wrote: February 10th, 2021, 6:23 am The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though.
What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.
The process is physical, yes.
So if the process is physical, then the fact that the car is running isn't something else than a physical fact, is it?
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by chewybrian »

Terrapin Station wrote: February 10th, 2021, 7:36 am
chewybrian wrote: February 10th, 2021, 6:23 am The car is a physical thing. The fact that it is running is something else, though.
What you're writing here is extremely confused. "Physical" doesn't only refer to objects (in the matter sense). Processes are physical.
The process is physical, yes.
So if the process is physical, then the fact that the car is running isn't something else than a physical fact, is it?
Good grief! Yes the fact that the car is running is an observation of the state of affairs, of physical things and processes. But the observation itself, the experience of knowing that the car is running, all possible meaning to the idea of a car or the purpose of it...these things attach only to the subjective understanding of the physical events. This subjective understanding defies our ability to understand and explain it in a way that the car and its physical processes do not. To try to force your understanding of it into the box of science or physics or whatever is to take a childish view of a complex and messy reality. (Not trying to insult here, but that is the term and the framing of the problem you would find from De Beauvoir) Only by admitting to the obvious messy reality can you be authentic and accept responsibility for your own choices.

REAL reality is not a simple set of rules. Rules are useful for defining and understanding physical things and processes, but they say nothing about subjectivity. If you attempt to limit reality to physical processes such that 'rules' must always hold, then you are attempting to destroy yourself in the process. You should be having some cognitive dissonance about the beliefs you are stating. Can you ignore or deny that you have freedom of choice? Don't you see how these things are necessarily wrapped up together? You can't fairly describe the world as 100% physical without denying freedom. Freedom is self-evident, so there is a problem there. When you insert freedom, any overarching set of rules tends to fall apart. I guess if you deny freedom, then you don't see a problem there. However, I think everyone sees and experiences the freedom, since I do. Therefore, I must asssume they are not authentic if they claim not to see it, or to accept its implications.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by chewybrian »

PS. In case you've gotten lost about what we were trying to discuss...the argument was about whether thoughts were physical or not. I am not trying to say that the car or any of its processes or the effects of them are not physical. I am saying that *I* am not (at least the part that matters).
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
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?

Post by Terrapin Station »

chewybrian wrote: February 10th, 2021, 8:20 am Good grief! Yes the fact that the car is running is an observation of the state of affairs, of physical things and processes.
??? Why would you flip to framing it as an observation?

You mean that if we start a car so that it's running, and then every person suddenly disappears so that there is no one extant any longer to make an observation in the sense you're using that term, then the car is no longer running?

I'm hoping to get back to other stuff from previous posts, by the way, but your responses are increasingly bizarre/absurd, so it's hard to get past something that should be simple to settle.
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