Morality and Subjectivity

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

So, after this somewhat confused summation, my conclusion, for what it’s worth, is that what we call morality is a many-faceted subjective entity built by minds in response to objective facts about us and the world.

When I return to websites like this I tend to read the threads from the last post I made and respond to people as I go.

Consequently I saw this post AFTER I wrote my reply to tonyrey and you have said many of the same things I just did, sometimes even better than I did. Thank you.

 

[sidbrown]

That is not a belief, that is a definition. 1 is not something that exists, nor is the operation 1 + 1 = 2. In mathematics we have defined for ourselves what 1 and 2 represent and what the operator + means. It comes from the idea of mathematical “sets”. Numbers in and of themselves do not exist. They are concepts.

Humans choose many ways to represent the world in their minds. Some of those representations are useful and some are not, but they are all subjective means by which we choose to represent our awareness of the world around us. Mathematics is one of those representations and it has proven to be a monstrously useful one to us. The idea that 1 + 1 = 2 represents some kind of objective truth however is to miss the very basis of the subtle beauty and foundation of mathematics, but alas it is the prevailing impression those who have not engaged in mathematics as a career or deep hobby are presented with.

This is nonsense because one apple plus one apple always gives two apples and not three or four. So it is an objective truth and it is false that everything we believe is subjective.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

This is nonsense because one apple plus one apple always gives two apples and not three or four. So it is an objective truth and it is false that everything we believe is subjective.

I know exactly what you mean. But again the numbers 1, 2 and the operator AND which you apply to them are not things that actually exist. 2 is merely how we choose to represent the set of apples that you are now presenting.

I fully understand where you are coming from, and anyone who has not engaged in mathematics beyond the level of high school does indeed share the impression you have of it.

But again, if you ever want to nurture an interest in mathematics then you really do need to engage with the fact that the term “1” does not exist in and of itself. It is a subjective comparative term we use to represent the universe around us.

Again I strongly urge you to read and explore the concept of “set theory” from which we get the concept of “1” and “+” and so on. Whole swaths of mathematics will make no sense to you if you insist on retaining the concept that “1” is something that objectively exists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

However this is entirely off topic, and if you just want to pull people up on short sentences rather than unpack them then I am not sure how to help you. Maybe if I change my generalised sentence to “What we know is subjective but constrained by the objective truths around us” you can move on and return to the topic of the actual thread?

 

[sidbrown]

I know exactly what you mean. But again the numbers 1, 2 and the operator AND which you apply to them are not things that actually exist. 2 is merely how we choose to represent the set of apples that you are now presenting.

I fully understand where you are coming from, and anyone who has not engaged in mathematics beyond the level of high school does indeed share the impression you have of it.

But again, if you ever want to nurture an interest in mathematics then you really do need to engage with the fact that the term “1” does not exist in and of itself. It is a subjective comparative term we use to represent the universe around us.

Again I strongly urge you to read and explore the concept of “set theory” from which we get the concept of “1” and “+” and so on. Whole swaths of mathematics will make no sense to you if you insist on retaining the concept that “1” is something that objectively exists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

However this is entirely off topic, and if you just want to pull people up on short sentences rather than unpack them then I am not sure how to help you. Maybe if I change my generalised sentence to “What we know is subjective but constrained by the objective truths around us” you can move on and return to the topic of the actual thread?

No. That is fuzzy thinking on your part and an attempt to deflect the question. Not everything that we know is subjective and there is in fact objective knowledge and truth. Take for example the fact that we know that Obama is president of the USA. This is an objective fact and has nothing to do with subjectivity. Or take for example, the statement that Benedict is the Pope of the Catholic Church. This is also an objective truth. Or take the fact that the Vatican is a city inside Italy. This is alos objectively true. So not everything that we know is subjective.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Again this is entirely off topic to the subject of Morality which the thread is about. If you want to return to the topic and discuss my stance on morality then do so. If not then I do not want to upset any other users or moderators by pandering to this derailing the thread with off topic discussions on Obama and Set Theory and more.

As I said, there is no evidence on offer to me to suggest that there exists an objective moral realm open to exploration and discovery, leaving the only other conclusion that it exists solely as a subjective function of our own desires for the society in which we wish to live and the actions of those therein.

As I say however, these moral conclusions we reach are heavily constrained and influenced by objective or majority truths about the world in which we do live. However being constrained by objective truths does not make the morality itself objective in any way.

As I said before as analogy, our knowledge of “blue” is entirely subjective. This does not change the fact that “blue” has an objective fixed wavelength range. The objectiveness of that truth about blue in no way makes the experience of blue “objective”.

 

[Sair]

When I return to websites like this I tend to read the threads from the last post I made and respond to people as I go.

Consequently I saw this post AFTER I wrote my reply to tonyrey and you have said many of the same things I just did, sometimes even better than I did. Thank you.

I think you gave a bit more information, though

Having read your post, I think it provides a good demonstration of how people can come to the same conclusions through independent reasoning processes, but using much the same external facts. This is probably why we find such basic commonalities in the moral strictures of every human society.

 

[tonyrey]

Or perhaps, to think of it in another way, morality is a subjective response to objective circumstances. There are certain facts about humans and the way we interact with the world around us, and the effects external realities have on our internal workings. These can be considered objective facts

Our judgement of the rightness or wrongness of actions is intricately bound up with these kinds of objective realities. We can observe the effects of certain actions, both on the external world - including other people - and on our internal conditions, both psychological and physiological. We can determine if these effects are positive or negative.

Thus much for the objective facts. Moral philosophers often say there is no direct mechanism for deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. I’m not so sure.

I entirely agree with you. If we deny we ought to be reasonable we regard reasoning as an unnecessary luxury - which is absurd!

I don’t think it’s possible to speak of ‘morality’ as an objective entity existing apart from minds, and so I don’t think morality as such can be entirely objective. Indeed, if there were no minds, there would be no morality.

That is true but “mind-dependent” need not be equated with “subjective”. If morality is bound up with the intellect and sentience it has an objective component.

But minds process information that comes from objective realities, and although every mind does this slightly differently, the objective facts are, by definition, the same for everyone.

Precisely. I anticipated you (unwittingly).

So, after this somewhat confused summation, my conclusion, for what it’s worth, is that what we call morality is a many-faceted subjective entity built by minds in response to objective facts about us and the world.

Your self-deprecation is unwarranted!
I would add only that subjectivity gives the impression that morality is entirely a matter of opinion whereas it is, as you have pointed out, largely determined by facts about sentient beings.

 

[Betterave]

Or perhaps, to think of it in another way, morality is a subjective response to objective circumstances.

Of course we can just as truly say: “immorality is a subjective response to objective circumstances” - either way, a rather banal observation, wouldn’t you say?

So, after this somewhat confused summation, my conclusion, for what it’s worth, is that what we call morality is a many-faceted subjective entity built by minds in response to objective facts about us and the world.

Same comment: “what we call immorality is a many-faceted subjective entity built by minds in response to objective facts about us and the world.”

But what is that kind of claim even supposed to mean? What are you trying to say? Is morality “a subjective response”; or is it “a many-faceted subjective entity” (whatever that means - I would have thought that you and I were such entities, but surely not morality)?

 

[Betterave]

I think you are a little too keen to split the word into distinct categories and declare by fiat that things must fall into one and have nothing to do with the other.

Given that no one has provided any evidence that there is an objective moral realm external to ourselves which we can explore and discover I am forced into the only other conclusion that it starts and ends solely with us. Where does this “right to life” actually exist except as an idea humans came up with and retained?

However just because this is therefore a subjective realm does not mean it has nothing to do with the objective at all. The subjective is constrained and influenced by objective truths.

Take the color blue. We have no idea what you as an observer see when you look at blue and whether it is the same as I see and experience. “Blue” is entirely subjective. However this does not change the fact that regardless of the observer light with the color “blue” has the exact same wavelength regardless of whether you look at it, I look at it, or no one at all looks at it.

Human morality appears to be a subjective realm, but it is constrained and influenced by dominantly occurring truths about the human condition. Things like our wish to avoid pain, to protect our children, to retain our possessions and so on.

Although there are clearly minority exceptions to all those things, when we come together in the human relationship we call society the consensus on those issues is so overwhelming that I am not unsympathetic to those who are given the illusion that those consensus represent some form of objective truth which we have discovered. However given the lack of evidence that any such “truth” exists, an illusion is all it is.

This is so sloppy and confused, it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll just briefly comment on this:

“Human morality appears to be a **subjective realm **[meaning what???], but it is constrained and influenced [but not *determined? - but if not, then it must be some real independent ‘thing in itself,’ which as such can be objectively subject to the constraint and influence’ you mention here - but then it is objectively real, since it is one of the terms of an objectively real relation!] by dominantly occurring truths objective facts?] about the human condition. Things like our wish to avoid pain, to protect our children, to retain our possessions and so on.”

 

[Betterave]

I would add only that subjectivity gives the impression that morality is entirely a matter of opinion whereas it is, as you have pointed out, largely determined by facts about sentient beings.

Why say morality is “largely determined by facts about…” rather than “morality is a fact about…”? And why talk about sentient beings as opposed to intelligent beings? While snails are sentient, they do not have any notion of morality. We might accord them a minimal amount of respect insofar as they are sentient beings, but this is because we are intelligent beings, not because we are sentient beings.

 

[tonyrey]

I would add only that subjectivity gives the impression that morality is entirely a matter of opinion whereas it is, as you have pointed out, largely determined by facts about sentient beings.

I am sure you would agree that morality is more than a fact! Surely it entails personal activity. Sair is right in saying it does not exist without rational beings. It presupposes judgment, free will and responsibility. Please note that I excluded neither rational beings nor inanimate objects with my use of “largely”. We have a duty to cherish God’s Creation in all its positive aspects.

And why talk about sentient beings as opposed to intelligent beings? While snails are sentient, they do not have any notion of morality. We might accord them a minimal amount of respect insofar as they are sentient beings, but this is because we are intelligent beings, not because we are sentient beings. While snails are sentient, they do not have any notion of morality. We might accord them a minimal amount of respect insofar as they are sentient beings, but this is because we are intelligent beings, not because we are sentient beings.

I have not opposed rational beings to sentient beings - or viceversa! I explicitly included sentient beings because Sair was loth to discuss animal rights. We have an obligation to respect all life and not to cause unnecessary suffering and death regardless of whether it is human or non-human. Why “a **minimal **amount of respect” for snails? It sounds a rather begrudging concession for such fascinating creatures… (I agree that it shouldn’t be “a maximal amount of respect”! Perhaps “an appropriate amount of respect” would be more appropriate!)

 

[sidbrown]

Again this is entirely off topic to the subject of Morality which the thread is about. If you want to return to the topic and discuss my stance on morality then do so. If not then I do not want to upset any other users or moderators by pandering to this derailing the thread with off topic discussions on Obama and Set Theory and more.

As I said, there is no evidence on offer to me to suggest that there exists an objective moral realm open to exploration and discovery, leaving the only other conclusion that it exists solely as a subjective function of our own desires for the society in which we wish to live and the actions of those therein.

As I say however, these moral conclusions we reach are heavily constrained and influenced by objective or majority truths about the world in which we do live. However being constrained by objective truths does not make the morality itself objective in any way.

As I said before as analogy, our knowledge of “blue” is entirely subjective. This does not change the fact that “blue” has an objective fixed wavelength range. The objectiveness of that truth about blue in no way makes the experience of blue “objective”.

So you are running away from what you said in post #345?

I am more than aware that everything we believe is subjective.

Like I said, this is obviously false since we believe that Italy is a country in Europe and this is not subjective at all.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

This is so sloppy and confused, it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll just briefly comment on this:

I do not know why I even bother to make arguments and explain myself. Who needs facts, arguments, evidence and reason when you can just call something “sloppy” as if that means you have suddenly made a valid point?

Rest assured however, your inability to see where someone is coming from does not extrapolate into the person saying it being the one that is sloppy and confused. If you want me to elaborate on something then merely ask. Calling it sloppy and confused does not magically confer that attribute to it however, and it does not indicate the problem lies anywhere but with you.

That said however, what you did ask about I can now elaborate on.

1. “Subjective realm”. What I mean by this is that given there is no evidence on offer to me to suggest that morality is an objective realm, or an objective set of truths waiting for our exploration and discovery, it suggests to me that it is entirely subjective. It lives and dies with us and these magical concepts like “Right to life” are not things that exist in and of themselves, either as a thing or as a truth. They are merely representations of the consensus of desire for those participants in a society for how that society will be run.
2. Constrained and influenced but not determined. Exactly. Think of it like a drop of water on a window of a house in normal weather. The objective truths of the condition of that drop will constrain its path. Gravity for example and imperfections in the glass. These things will make it go down, but there is no objective path it must take to get there. It will shoot left, right, down, stop for some time, start again. At no point will it start going back up however. Its path is constrained, influenced but not determined.

It is the same for morality. It is influenced and constrained by several common truths about the human condition. Our desire to protect our children, not to experience pain, to retain our possessions and so on. This does not determine what the morality will be, but it sure influences it heavily resulting in exactly what we would expect… a rainbow of moral positions where at one end of the spectrum we have vast almost total consensus on moral positions, and at the other end moral questions almost no one can agree on. And everything in between.

1. “dominantly occurring truths * “ Had I meant objective facts I would have said objective facts. I said dominantly occouring truths because I meant, wait for it, dominantly occouring truths. My reason for that should be clear. There is nothing in my list of examples, or any list of desires of human beings, that is objective. I gave for example the wish to avoid pain. There are those who enjoy pain. I gave the example of the wish to protect our children. There are those who wish to engage in all kinds of harm on children. These wishes are dominant, often vastly so, in our species, but not 100%. Not one single desire or wish you can name is dominant in 100% of humans, not even the wish to live.*

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

So you are running away from what you said in post #345?

Like I said, this is obviously false since we believe that Italy is a country in Europe and this is not subjective at all.

You seem to wish to detail this topic at every chance.

I would ask you to at least have some decorum and apply CONTEXT to what people say. Most people have a level of decorum to do this. If I walk into a room populated solely and only by red objects I would say “Everything is red”. No one there would have the lack of decorum to say “Do not be stupid, everything is not red, sure there is green grass just outside the door”.

Similarly if on a thread about morality I say “Everything is subjective” then please have at least some decency of etiquette to apply my statement to the context in which it was made, rather than use it as a poor opportunistic attempt to derail the thread because that is easier to do for you than to deal with what I am ACTUALLY espousing therein.

The context of my comment was as a reply to the person who said “the basis of all our knowledge is our subjective experience” and it should be read as nothing but an affirmation and agreement with that users point.

 

[sidbrown]

You seem to wish to detail this topic at every chance.

I would ask you to at least have some decorum and apply CONTEXT to what people say. Most people have a level of decorum to do this. If I walk into a room populated solely and only by red objects I would say “Everything is red”. No one there would have the lack of decorum to say “Do not be stupid, everything is not red, sure there is green grass just outside the door”.

Similarly if on a thread about morality I say “Everything is subjective” then please have at least some decency of etiquette to apply my statement to the context in which it was made, rather than use it as a poor opportunistic attempt to derail the thread because that is easier to do for you than to deal with what I am ACTUALLY espousing therein.

The context of my comment was as a reply to the person who said “the basis of all our knowledge is our subjective experience” and it should be read as nothing but an affirmation and agreement with that users point.

So to sum up, you do admit that you were wrong to say that everything we believe is subjective? Is that right?

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

So to sum up, you do admit that you were wrong to say that everything we believe is subjective? Is that right?

No, I admit that the statement is meaningless, inaccurate and useless IF you insist on taking it out of the context it was actually said in.

Care to go back on topic now and deal with what I have been espousing, rather than what my statements mean when read out of context? Or do you just find this approach easier to cope with?

 

[sidbrown]

No, I admit that the statement is meaningless, inaccurate and useless IF you insist on taking it out of the context it was actually said in.

Care to go back on topic now and deal with what I have been espousing, rather than what my statements mean when read out of context? Or do you just find this approach easier to cope with?

Would you agree that it is difficult to make sense of what a person is saying if he says that his statements are meaningless.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Would you agree that it is difficult to make sense of what a person is saying if he says that his statements are meaningless.

Yes. Thankfully I have said no such thing. I have said my sentences are meaningless IF you insist on reading them out of the context in which they were said.

So I take it you are not capable of going back on topic and prefer instead to trawl the thread for statements that if taken out of context mean something entirely different?

Derail threads often?

 

[sidbrown]

Yes. Thankfully I have said no such thing. I have said my sentences are meaningless IF you insist on reading them out of the context in which they were said.

So I take it you are not capable of going back on topic and prefer instead to trawl the thread for statements that if taken out of context mean something entirely different?

Derail threads often?

Well, my personal opinion is that there are some things that are subjective, but not everything is subjective. And I believe that I have given enough examples to support my argument in this regard.
As far as morality is concerned, I believe that there are things which are objectively immoral and wrong and there are things which are objectively good and morally correct. And I can give you examples which support my argument here also.
So, no, not everthing is subjective. Not at all.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

As far as morality is concerned, I believe that there are things which are objectively immoral and wrong and there are things which are objectively good and morally correct. And I can give you examples which support my argument here also.

Well done for getting back on topic. Just saying something moral is objective does not magically make it take on that attribute. Maybe you can tell me what is morally objective and how and why. Please provide the examples and arguments to which you refer.

As I said I have yet to be shown any arguments or evidence for an objective morality. What I do see is that our subjective consensus on a hand full of prevailing moral issues is so vast that it can give the ILLUSION that it must be an objective truth, but in the absence of any evidence that it actually is an illusion is all it appears to be.