What could make morality objective?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Terrapin,

It could be said I think that only half of your brain is enclosed within your skull, the other half being the physical world as an object. The saying that subject and object stand or fall together, meaning, without biological consciousness, there is no object[ read cognitively] and without the object, there is no consciousness[ cognitively]. You might think of it as the world of objects is the fuel consciousness works upon, without which there is nothing.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

GE Morton wrote: April 26th, 2021, 10:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: April 25th, 2021, 9:51 am
Sorry, but definitions - as either explanations of the uses of words, or description of things - are, uncontroversially, matters of opinion - even if the opinions is wide or universal.
A definition states the accepted, understood meaning of a word in a given speech community, how it is commonly used. It either does or does not correctly state that use. When it does, it is a fact. I.e., "Word X means Y among speakers of L" is either true or false, which can be determined empirically.
Why? Your faith in a morality that is 'formal' and 'constructed via logical argument' is quaint. Perhaps Aristotle's contempt for women and slaves demonstrates the objectivity of such moral systems. After all, rationality is the aim.
Oh, my. My "faith" in logical argument? Doesn't everyone who purports to be a philosopher have "faith" in logical argument? Are you suggesting that because some logical arguments are invalid, reliance on logic and rationality is "quaint" and may be set aside as passe?
This is just false. Every single so-called 'public morality' has contained judgements about what should be considered acceptable and unacceptable - and those are matters of opinion. There's nothing factual about them.
You're no doubt speaking of vernacular moralities. I agree.
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality. And neither of those is 'moral' in the sense of 'morally right or wrong'. The expression 'moral fact' is incoherent. There are only facts about which there can be moral opinions, which are necessarily subjective.
Part of the problem here is your narrow conception of what the term "reality" (like "existent" and "thing") denotes.

A "moral" proposition is one which asserts a principle or rule governing interactions between agents in a social setting, the aim of which is preserving and improving the welfare of the agents in that setting, or one which declares a given act to be either commanded by, or consistent or inconsistent with, such a rule or principle. Whether a rule or act is or is not consistent with that aim is empirically determinable. It is a fact, and an aspect of "reality."
I note that, as usual, you don't actually address my point, which is that your position is contradictory, and therefore incoherent.

You claim that the words 'ought', 'should', 'right' and 'wrong' in moral assertions are purely instrumental, denoting publicly confirmable consistency with a goal - as in 'if we want to drive safely, we ought not to jump the lights'.

And yet you claim we ought to have this moral system (as defined), and we ought to act consistently with our goals.

Question: with what goals are those two claims consistent?

I think your answers must be circular, and therefore question-begging.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Peter Holmes wrote: April 27th, 2021, 3:46 am
GE Morton wrote: April 26th, 2021, 10:03 am
Peter Holmes wrote: April 25th, 2021, 9:51 am
Sorry, but definitions - as either explanations of the uses of words, or description of things - are, uncontroversially, matters of opinion - even if the opinions is wide or universal.
A definition states the accepted, understood meaning of a word in a given speech community, how it is commonly used. It either does or does not correctly state that use. When it does, it is a fact. I.e., "Word X means Y among speakers of L" is either true or false, which can be determined empirically.
Why? Your faith in a morality that is 'formal' and 'constructed via logical argument' is quaint. Perhaps Aristotle's contempt for women and slaves demonstrates the objectivity of such moral systems. After all, rationality is the aim.
Oh, my. My "faith" in logical argument? Doesn't everyone who purports to be a philosopher have "faith" in logical argument? Are you suggesting that because some logical arguments are invalid, reliance on logic and rationality is "quaint" and may be set aside as passe?
This is just false. Every single so-called 'public morality' has contained judgements about what should be considered acceptable and unacceptable - and those are matters of opinion. There's nothing factual about them.
You're no doubt speaking of vernacular moralities. I agree.
What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, or a description of such a feature of reality. And neither of those is 'moral' in the sense of 'morally right or wrong'. The expression 'moral fact' is incoherent. There are only facts about which there can be moral opinions, which are necessarily subjective.
Part of the problem here is your narrow conception of what the term "reality" (like "existent" and "thing") denotes.

A "moral" proposition is one which asserts a principle or rule governing interactions between agents in a social setting, the aim of which is preserving and improving the welfare of the agents in that setting, or one which declares a given act to be either commanded by, or consistent or inconsistent with, such a rule or principle. Whether a rule or act is or is not consistent with that aim is empirically determinable. It is a fact, and an aspect of "reality."
I note that, as usual, you don't actually address my point, which is that your position is contradictory, and therefore incoherent.
You made several points in the post to which I responded. I answered each. There was no claim of inconsistency in that post to which to respond.
You claim that the words 'ought', 'should', 'right' and 'wrong' in moral assertions are purely instrumental, denoting publicly confirmable consistency with a goal - as in 'if we want to drive safely, we ought not to jump the lights'.
Yes.
And yet you claim we ought to have this moral system (as defined), and we ought to act consistently with our goals.
Oh, no. I've never claimed "we ought to have this moral system." Or any particular moral system. That would indeed be circular. I've only claimed that protecting and improving people's welfare has been the underlying aim of virtually all moral systems over the centuries, and that determining what principles and rules further that aim is a pragmatic and objective undertaking. If you don't share that aim then you have no need for those rules, or perhaps for any morality at all.

"Oughts" are only meaningful with reference to some goal. But we can't have an "ought" to pursue a certain goal. That would presume some further goal, ad infinitum. The goal must be a given.

As for, "we ought to act consistently with our goals," yes --- that is implied by the concept of a goal.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

popeye1945 wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:39 pm Terrapin,
Yes, I fully agree, but, what you have quoted as what I have said, does not belong to me. All meaning is subjective, it is subjectively applied to the objects of the physical world. Meaning is never the actual property of the object, but always the subject. Meaning is the effect of stimulus and cognitive judgement of biological consciousness identified as the object.
Yeah, I screwed up the quotation formatting.

Re "Meaning is the effect of stimulus and cognitive judgement of biological consciousness identified as the object," I have no idea what that's saying really.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Yeah ok, maybe I could have stated it more clearly. Here goes, the object can be thought of as cause, its reflected light is going out from it to you. Perception of the said object can be said to be your reaction to that object. Think of all the objects around you as causes, they affect you and as a result, your biology taking in this data produces a biological readout/ a summation, which is then known as apparent reality. Let me know if I am being any clearer.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

GE Morton wrote: April 27th, 2021, 10:16 am As for, "we ought to act consistently with our goals," yes --- that is implied by the concept of a goal.
An 'is' (a fact) cannot entail an 'ought', unless the inference begs the question.

Therefore, the 'is' of having a goal cannot entail the 'ought' of acting consistently with that goal.

Talk of implication, conceptual or otherwise, merely begs the question. The same fallacy is evident in the claim that making promises entails keeping them.

That action X is consistent with goal Y doesn't entail the conclusion that, if we want goal Y, we ought to do X. The 'ought' there is contraband.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

popeye1945 wrote: April 27th, 2021, 4:10 pm Yeah ok, maybe I could have stated it more clearly. Here goes, the object can be thought of as cause, its reflected light is going out from it to you. Perception of the said object can be said to be your reaction to that object. Think of all the objects around you as causes, they affect you and as a result, your biology taking in this data produces a biological readout/ a summation, which is then known as apparent reality. Let me know if I am being any clearer.
That makes more sense but I'm not clear on what you're thinking the connection is here to meaning. It's weird that the bit I didn't understand seemed to be part of your theory of meaning, but above you seem to only be talking about your theory of perception.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: April 29th, 2021, 5:35 am
GE Morton wrote: April 27th, 2021, 10:16 am As for, "we ought to act consistently with our goals," yes --- that is implied by the concept of a goal.
An 'is' (a fact) cannot entail an 'ought', unless the inference begs the question.

Therefore, the 'is' of having a goal cannot entail the 'ought' of acting consistently with that goal.

Talk of implication, conceptual or otherwise, merely begs the question. The same fallacy is evident in the claim that making promises entails keeping them.

That action X is consistent with goal Y doesn't entail the conclusion that, if we want goal Y, we ought to do X. The 'ought' there is contraband.
At best he'd be saying that that's a conventional way of thinking about goals, but then that would amount to an argumentum ad populum.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Peter Holmes wrote: April 29th, 2021, 5:35 am
GE Morton wrote: April 27th, 2021, 10:16 am As for, "we ought to act consistently with our goals," yes --- that is implied by the concept of a goal.
An 'is' (a fact) cannot entail an 'ought', unless the inference begs the question.

Therefore, the 'is' of having a goal cannot entail the 'ought' of acting consistently with that goal.

Talk of implication, conceptual or otherwise, merely begs the question. The same fallacy is evident in the claim that making promises entails keeping them.

That action X is consistent with goal Y doesn't entail the conclusion that, if we want goal Y, we ought to do X. The 'ought' there is contraband.
A clever argument! But the "is/ought" fallacy only arises with the so-called "moral" sense of "ought." In the instrumental sense, "You ought to do X given goal Y" only means, "Y is an effective and opportune means of accomplishing X," or, "Y is the best available action for accomplishing X." E.g., "If you wish to drive a nail, you ought to get a hammer."

It is the "moral" sense of "ought" that is "contraband."

And, yes, having a goal entails that one will take effective, opportune actions to attain it. Actions are evidence of intentions. If someone claims to have a certain goal, but consistently fails to take actions to attain it, we would fairly conclude his claim was false.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

That makes more sense but I'm not clear on what you're thinking the connection is here to meaning. It's weird that the bit I didn't understand seemed to be part of your theory of meaning, but above you seem to only be talking about your theory of perception.
[/quote]

It might help to keep in mind that only through a conscious subject [person ] does perception occur. You perceive a rock and you determine it is hard, it is only as hard as you are soft, hard and soft are meanings. The light coming to you from the rock is a stimulus, the stimulus affects you and thus you are affected, this is perception, and this is the beginning of a process of understanding. The understanding is, how does this perception affect my biological being, how it effects you is what its meaning comes to be, just as the experience of water is that you find it wet. So, this substance water is wet stuff.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

GE Morton wrote: April 29th, 2021, 9:52 am And, yes, having a goal entails that one will take effective, opportune actions to attain it. Actions are evidence of intentions. If someone claims to have a certain goal, but consistently fails to take actions to attain it, we would fairly conclude his claim was false.
You could conclude that, but then your take on "having a goal" doesn't really amount to what the person is thinking. They could be thinking something very different than what their actions evidence. So you'd basically be redefining this is behavioral terms, where you'd be leaving the mental phenomena simply not dealt with.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Terrapin Station wrote: April 29th, 2021, 9:55 am
You could conclude that, but then your take on "having a goal" doesn't really amount to what the person is thinking.
Quite correct. The only evidence we can ever have for what another person is thinking is what they say and what they do. I.e., their actions.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

GE Morton wrote: April 29th, 2021, 10:31 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 29th, 2021, 9:55 am
You could conclude that, but then your take on "having a goal" doesn't really amount to what the person is thinking.
Quite correct. The only evidence we can ever have for what another person is thinking is what they say and what they do. I.e., their actions.
Sure, "So you'd basically be redefining this is behavioral terms, where you'd be leaving the mental phenomena simply not dealt with."
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

GE Morton wrote: April 29th, 2021, 9:52 am
Peter Holmes wrote: April 29th, 2021, 5:35 am
GE Morton wrote: April 27th, 2021, 10:16 am As for, "we ought to act consistently with our goals," yes --- that is implied by the concept of a goal.
An 'is' (a fact) cannot entail an 'ought', unless the inference begs the question.

Therefore, the 'is' of having a goal cannot entail the 'ought' of acting consistently with that goal.

Talk of implication, conceptual or otherwise, merely begs the question. The same fallacy is evident in the claim that making promises entails keeping them.

That action X is consistent with goal Y doesn't entail the conclusion that, if we want goal Y, we ought to do X. The 'ought' there is contraband.
A clever argument! But the "is/ought" fallacy only arises with the so-called "moral" sense of "ought." In the instrumental sense, "You ought to do X given goal Y" only means, "Y is an effective and opportune means of accomplishing X," or, "Y is the best available action for accomplishing X." E.g., "If you wish to drive a nail, you ought to get a hammer."

It is the "moral" sense of "ought" that is "contraband."

And, yes, having a goal entails that one will take effective, opportune actions to attain it. Actions are evidence of intentions. If someone claims to have a certain goal, but consistently fails to take actions to attain it, we would fairly conclude his claim was false.
1 To repeat, that action X is consistent with (or will achieve) goal Y doesn't entail the conclusion that, if we want goal Y, we ought to do X. It just means what it says: doing X will achieve goal Y.

2 There's no deductive entailment from having a goal to acting to attain it. And that's why negating the conclusion doesn't produce a contradiction. Or if it does, the inference is question-begging.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by GE Morton »

Peter Holmes wrote: April 29th, 2021, 12:12 pm
1 To repeat, that action X is consistent with (or will achieve) goal Y doesn't entail the conclusion that, if we want goal Y, we ought to do X. It just means what it says: doing X will achieve goal Y.
Well yes, it does, if "ought" is understood in the instrumental sense I gave above.
2 There's no deductive entailment from having a goal to acting to attain it.
That depends on the definition assumed for "goal." Per most dictionaries, it does:

"1. : the end toward which effort is directed : AIM"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goal

"2. The object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result."

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/goal

If no effort is directed toward something claimed to be goal, then it is not a goal.
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