Objective morality

[Sair]

The most successful male lions are the ones who drive away the males of a pride, killing them if necessary and then they set about killing off the cubs of the vanquished males. Would you have us emulate that behaviour?

I wouldn’t, but then, I’m not the one who believes in objective morality! The lions behave in ways that benefit themselves and ultimately the strength of their species. That’s how survival and evolution work. You might have noticed that the evolutionary path of humans has not been the same as that of lions…

Or perhaps it would be better if we didn’t behave like animals and, instead, observed a moral code which has its foundations in observable characteristics of human nature? Some of them are described in various documents around the world as “self evident truths”. You know, sort of set a standard for ourselves so we don’t behave like animals?

We’ll always behave like animals, because we are animals. It seems a little odd to claim - as you indirectly do here - that crocodiles behave the same way as goats, for example, or elephants in the same way as hyenas, just because they are all animals; in short, that they all behave the same way and that this way is fundamentally different to the way humans behave. All other animals behave like themselves, just as we do.

Which observable characteristics did you have in mind? Our tendency to be selfish, or our tendency to be altruistic? Our tendency towards self-restraint and industry, or our tendency towards indulgence and idleness? Our tendency towards gentleness and generosity or our tendency towards rapine? Our tendency towards curiosity or our tendency towards wilful ignorance? All of these things have objective benefits in their way (often dependent upon circumstance). It’s only in our subjective responses to these behaviours in ourselves and others that the differentiation is made to allow some actions to be considered moral and others immoral.

 

[tonyrey]

Subjects are never regarded as objects but as a (moral) law unto themselves!

No need to apologise! My statement was a cryptic way of agreeing with you…

1. The subjectivist assumes values are created by subjects
2. If values are created by** subjects** they do not necessarily describe objects correctly
3. Persons are objects, i.e. they exist objectively
4. The subjectivist overlooks the fact that persons are objects
5. Therefore subjectivism is false

 

[Bobber90]

No need to apologise! My statement was a cryptic way of agreeing with you…

1. The subjectivist assumes values are created by subjects
2. If values are created by** subjects** they do not necessarily describe objects correctly
3. Persons are objects, i.e. they exist objectively
4. The subjectivist overlooks the fact that persons are objects
5. Therefore subjectivism is false

I believe this argument is only tangential to the main points Mackie makes regarding objective moral values, but I’ll respond to no. 3.

‘Persons are objects, ie they exist objectively.’ If I am right, this has it that objects are things that exist objectively. But what meaning is added by saying ‘objectively’, when we could simply say that people/objects exist? What is the difference between existing and existing objectively? If there is none, it would be very odd to say that subjectivism overlooks the fact that people exist…

 

[Bobber90]

I wouldn’t, but then, I’m not the one who believes in objective morality! The lions behave in ways that benefit themselves and ultimately the strength of their species. That’s how survival and evolution work. You might have noticed that the evolutionary path of humans has not been the same as that of lions…

We’ll always behave like animals, because we are animals. It seems a little odd to claim - as you indirectly do here - that crocodiles behave the same way as goats, for example, or elephants in the same way as hyenas, just because they are all animals; in short, that they all behave the same way and that this way is fundamentally different to the way humans behave. All other animals behave like themselves, just as we do.

Which observable characteristics did you have in mind? Our tendency to be selfish, or our tendency to be altruistic? Our tendency towards self-restraint and industry, or our tendency towards indulgence and idleness? Our tendency towards gentleness and generosity or our tendency towards rapine? Our tendency towards curiosity or our tendency towards wilful ignorance? All of these things have objective benefits in their way (often dependent upon circumstance). It’s only in our subjective responses to these behaviours in ourselves and others that the differentiation is made to allow some actions to be considered moral and others immoral.

Haven’t seen points like these put so clearly in a long time. Interestingly, even someone like the theist William James recognised that the phenomena of morality can exist without necessarily implying objective values exist too (if my interpretation of a short wikipedia quote can be trusted):

‘instinct and utility between them can safely be trusted to carry on the social business of punishment and praise’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will/

 

[Nate13]

I believe this argument is only tangential to the main points Mackie makes regarding objective moral values, but I’ll respond to no. 3.

‘Persons are objects, ie they exist objectively.’ If I am right, this has it that objects are things that exist objectively. But what meaning is added by saying ‘objectively’, when we could simply say that people/objects exist? What is the difference between existing and existing objectively? If there is none, it would be very odd to say that subjectivism overlooks the fact that people exist…

Because some people stop with “I exist”. If the “I” there can be anything I want it to be and can imagine, then its worthless for us to even have a discussion. Subjectivism allows me to say I’m a coyote, because I think I’m a coyote and therefore I am a coyote. I was just created with this weird body, but trust me in my mind I’m a coyote and that is all that matters. Objectively though we could deny a person that said this. Objectively the way we were created matters and our mind is by no means absolute. Thus I can tell a person its wrong to do such and such because it denies the reality of the way they were created.

 

[Bobber90]

Because some people stop with “I exist”. If the “I” there can be anything I want it to be and can imagine, then its worthless for us to even have a discussion. Subjectivism allows me to say I’m a coyote, because I think I’m a coyote and therefore I am a coyote. I was just created with this weird body, but trust me in my mind I’m a coyote and that is all that matters. Objectively though we could deny a person that said this. Objectively the way we were created matters and our mind is by no means absolute. Thus I can tell a person its wrong to do such and such because it denies the reality of the way they were created.

Either the person really did feel like a coyote in human form, in which case they would have to explain it, or they’re a liar. That doesn’t break any rules in subjectivism or somehow make it absurd.

*perhaps there is some mental problem this person has, which could be diagnosed subjectively by a subjective doctor, but which the person couldn’t explain themselves.

 

[Nate13]

Either the person really did feel like a coyote in human form, in which case they would have to explain it, or they’re a liar. That doesn’t break any rules in subjectivism or somehow make it absurd.

*perhaps there is some mental problem this person has, which could be diagnosed subjectively by a subjective doctor, but which the person couldn’t explain themselves.

If everything is subjective how do I even know that someone thinking they are a coyote is wrong? You also could not call it a mental “problem” because to call something a problem means your basing it off some objective standard and it does not match up.

 

[Bobber90]

If everything is subjective how do I even know that someone thinking they are a coyote is wrong? You also could not call it a mental “problem” because to call something a problem means your basing it off some objective standard and it does not match up.

They’re not necessarily wrong if they feel like a coyote, the problem comes when they get specific. If they say they perceive like one, we can test their senses; if they said they think like one, we can examine knowledge of coyote thought patterns; if they say they have the body of a coyote, we can examine that too. All of this can be done subjectively, and we can conclude on balance whether they are being honest. Nothing follows from the claim that someone thinks they are a coyote that is of any interest, I believe, to subjectivism. Why would we need some extra way of telling someone that they are not a coyote?

 

[grannymh]

This is my opinion of the problems.

What is being overlooked is the foundation or base (universal truth) for a moral system. Once a valid base is named and recognized as such (universal or objective truth), then and only then can people describe morality.

Now it is not my intention to interrupt philosophical speculations. I will simply wait until someone can objectively describe an universal base for morality. Hopefully, life will not be so hectic that I miss that post.

 

[Nate13]

I’d like to hit on another point that you kind of alluded to with the idea of “sharing is good, because its good”. Objective morality is based on the idea that self-evident truth’s exist. On the idea that something is true, because anyone reasonable can see its true. Natural rights are the one example of this most people can jump on to. A lot of people can understand this with respect to natural law as well. Certain things are just self-evident and speak for themselves.

There is no definitive proof that objective morality exists. It is just self-evident.

 

[Bobber90]

I’d like to hit on another point that you kind of alluded to with the idea of “sharing is good, because its good”. Objective morality is based on the idea that self-evident truth’s exist. On the idea that something is true, because anyone reasonable can see its true. Natural rights are the one example of this most people can jump on to. A lot of people can understand this with respect to natural law as well. Certain things are just self-evident and speak for themselves.

There is no definitive proof that objective morality exists. It is just self-evident.

We can say that objective morality is actually mistaken subjective morality, and that features such as universal precepts and self-evidentness are instead composed by instinct (inherited or culturally inculcated) plus utility. That would explain the subjective importance in a way that faces fewer metaphysical problems. Do you have a way of disagreeing with that?

 

[grannymh]

This is my opinion of the problems.

What is being overlooked is the foundation or base (universal truth) for a moral system. Once a valid base is named and recognized as such (universal or objective truth), then and only then can people describe morality.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Bobber90]

This is my opinion of the problems.

What is being overlooked is the foundation or base (universal truth) for a moral system. Once a valid base is named and recognized as such (universal or objective truth), then and only then can people describe morality.

It is fine for a subjective morality to require that rules are universal - they have to apply to everyone - but is it also necessary for people to believe in objective groundings for it to function?

I think the subjective feelings of guilt and shame at having let family/friends/contacts down are strong enough to impel behaviour even when we know that calm thinking in a quiet moment would have it that there is no absolute force that insists this. In the place of objective values, we have subjective values which are no less important to us simply because we cannot necessarily require others to agree. As a general ground and focal point for subjective values, we could say “We ought to be moral because, on balance, we would be happier in this state of affairs.” Sure, there is plenty to disagree on, but also plenty of common ground.

*I’m not saying that guilt alone would be enough to restrain people, we would probably need a state, but any such institution could rest on subjective emotions as strong as guilt

 

[Nate13]

We can say that objective morality is actually mistaken subjective morality, and that features such as universal precepts and self-evidentness are instead composed by instinct (inherited or culturally inculcated) plus utility. That would explain the subjective importance in a way that faces fewer metaphysical problems. Do you have a way of disagreeing with that?

Haha no I almost included something to that effect in my post before. To claim that our “perceptions” are subjective though and have no objective meaning denies that the reality we perceive is of any lasting importance. If our self-evident perceptions are meaningless and are not upheld as objective, then our every action is meaningless.

 

[Bobber90]

Haha no I almost included something to that effect in my post before. To claim that our “perceptions” are subjective though and have no objective meaning denies that the reality we perceive is of any lasting importance. If our self-evident perceptions are meaningless and are not upheld as objective, then our every action is meaningless.

I’m almost with you on that, because what does subjectivism offer except solipsism, you may ask. But I think there are many ways to avoid solipsism, or at least to avoid total egocentrism, along the lines of accepting that we’ll all take our perceptions seriously, because we want to. It is also not possible to claim that all we have is perception and perception is illusory, because to do so would rely upon that which is claimed to be illusory - ie be self-defeating. If we say that we think there is a reality partly accessible via perceptions, then we get all the benefits of science and are able to use our perceptions to predict what our perceptions will later tell us, which is helpful even if ‘illusory’.

 

[grannymh]

It is fine for a subjective morality to require that rules are universal - they have to apply to everyone - but is it also necessary for people to believe in objective groundings for it to function?

Yes.
In order to have rules – rules must be based on an objective base otherwise they are useless beyond the “neighborhood watch group.”

I will add another log to the fire. It is not necessary for everyone to have exactly the same belief or description of objective groundings or as I name it, an objective base or foundation which should be an universal or objective truth. All that is necessary is that the objective base exists and that by using the gift of reason, people can recognize it.

In my humble opinion, the reason past threads end up in circles of misunderstanding is that some, not all, posters are trying to build a house beginning with the second floor. In other words, discussions start with values which fly in the wind without a basement foundation.

 

[Bobber90]

Yes.
In order to have rules – rules must be based on an objective base otherwise they are useless beyond the “neighborhood watch group.”

I will add another log to the fire. It is not necessary for everyone to have exactly the same belief or description of objective groundings or as I name it, an objective base or foundation which should be an universal or objective truth. All that is necessary is that the objective base exists and that by using the gift of reason, people can recognize it.

In my humble opinion, the reason past threads end up in circles of misunderstanding is that some, not all, posters are trying to build a house beginning with the second floor. In other words, discussions start with values which fly in the wind without a basement foundation.

Well, hopefully that is not a problem this thread will suffer. To use your analogy, the opening arguments put the whole house (morality) in question, and consider whether we are discerning a ready-made objective house in the sky, or whether what we think we’ve found is actually an ongoing human construction project.

As you seem to say, reason guides us to the former conclusion. But what do you realise by the gift of reason? What is an objective moral value and how is it consequent upon an empirical situation, without necessarily regarding subjective values?

 

[Nate13]

Well, hopefully that is not a problem this thread will suffer. To use your analogy, the opening arguments put the whole house (morality) in question, and consider whether we are discerning a ready-made objective house in the sky, or whether what we think we’ve found is actually an ongoing human construction project.

As you seem to say, reason guides us to the former conclusion. But what do you realise by the gift of reason? What is an objective moral value and how is it consequent upon an empirical situation, without necessarily regarding subjective values?

There is a natural and inherent order to the Universe that is objective. Whether a person believes that is due to a God or just “is”, it can’t be ignored. When a person decides to ask “well why can’t it be ordered this way instead?” they are lost.

If we say that we think there is a reality partly accessible via perceptions, then we get all the benefits of science and are able to use our perceptions to predict what our perceptions will later tell us, which is helpful even if ‘illusory’.

Yes but we have to be wary of science because science does not see the big picture and thus will never be able to predict all the consequences of its actions. We see some small part of the big picture and attempt to make everything align just right within that part. Later we realize how that small part connected to all these other things, when the unintended consequences of our actions in those parts catch up to us.

 

[tonyrey]

1. The subjectivist assumes values are created

Whether the argument is tangential is irrelevant because what counts is its validity.

‘Persons are objects, ie they exist objectively.’ If I am right, this has it that objects are things that exist objectively. But what meaning is added by saying ‘objectively’, when we could simply say that people/objects exist? What is the difference between existing and existing objectively? If there is none, it would be very odd to say that subjectivism overlooks the fact that people exist…

Subjectivists believe values exist only in the mind, i.e. they exist “subjectively”, as opposed to persons who exist “objectively”.

 

[Bobber90]

Whether the argument is tangential is irrelevant because what counts is its validity.

Subjectivists believe values exist only in the mind, i.e. they exist “subjectively”, as opposed to persons who exist “objectively”.

They may well believe values exist only in the mind (though the values refer to things outside the mind), but they also believe minds exist, so the two beliefs are compatible.