Quality of morality

[danharte]

Hi all, I’ve recently been in a very cordial conversation with an atheist regarding objective morality.
I have no way to counter his argument as I lack any formal education in philosophy.
I shall present his argument below & hope that someone may offer some insight or reasonable rebuttal to his case.

"+Dan Harte there are subjective truths and objective truths.
Are you actually saying that Quality is objective, and not relative to context and perspective?
subjective conclusions are unrelated to objective conclusions.

Quality is measured subjectively. Anything subjective is a matter of Qualitative measurement.

Quantity is measured objectively. Anything quantitative is measured objectively And while logic is objective, morality is a matter of pure Quality. Which means that by its own inherent logical mechanics, it’s not possible to be objective.

When was the last time you measured moral value irrespective of context?

When was the last time everyone in the world measured morality the same?

The quantitative value of a bar of gold is objective information. If it weighs 1 kilo, then it weighs that same 1 kilo for everyone. But if it’s good or bad is never a matter of objective determination irrespective of context. +Dan Harte considering Quality to be the same as Properties of something is an error due to the inaccuracy of language.

Quality, what is good or bad, is always subjective. Morality is a designation of Quality. Therefore inherently subjective and not possible to be objective.
Is it objectively bad to cause suffering? Absolutely not. It might be subjectively bad, but that’s still relative to context. And it’s not always subjectively bad either. It still depends on context. There’s no such thing as causing harm for its own sake. It serves a purpose for someone or it doesn’t happen. +Dan Harte*and by the way. In case we haven’t covered this already. Quantity and Quality are logical forms in which information is possible to exist. Quality being inherently subjective, since it exists exclusively relative to perspective and is created by the observer, is impossible to be measured objectively. Nobody can reach in to your mind and extract with precision how you feel about a particular experience.

And since morality is a judgment of quality, it’s impossible to be objectively dictated. And since your concept of god is impossible to exist without the fallacy of subjective logical content in objective logical form, your god is summarily proven impossible to exist.

The fundamental law of logic, most fundamental that I know of anyway, is that valid logical content is not possible to exist while in invalid logical form. Therefore, if the form of the logic is invalid, the content (being your specific god) is known to be invalid even without further examination or analysis.
When an abstract construct is proven impossible to be true, it’s equally impossible for any manifestation of that abstract to exist.
The beauty of logic is, that you don’t always have to know everything about a given topic in order to know if it’s possible to be true, or not possible to be true."

As you can see, here’s my dilemma.
Regards Dan

 

[MPat]

Hi all, I’ve recently been in a very cordial conversation with an atheist regarding objective morality.
I have no way to counter his argument as I lack any formal education in philosophy.
I shall present his argument below & hope that someone may offer some insight or reasonable rebuttal to his case.

You do not need any formal education in this case.

Are you actually saying that Quality is objective, and not relative to context and perspective?
subjective conclusions are unrelated to objective conclusions.

So, we have one unsupported statement. Probably false (probably, as it is not very clear if it actually means anything). It would be a good idea to ask him to clarify what he meant.

Otherwise we can offer a counterexample. “This is a bar of gold.” is qualitative (unless he offers a definition of “Quality” he wants to use). “This bar of gold weights 1 kg.” is quantitative. But those statements are related.

Quality is measured subjectively. Anything subjective is a matter of Qualitative measurement.

And here we have a second unsupported statement. You are free to reject it, unless he wants to support it by some argument.

Quantity is measured objectively. Anything quantitative is measured objectively

And a third unsupported assertion.

And while logic is objective, morality is a matter of pure Quality.

And a fourth.

Which means that by its own inherent logical mechanics, it’s not possible to be objective.

And a conclusion based on unsupported (and false) assertions. Just because he used “big” words like “inherent logical mechanics” doesn’t mean that conclusion is any more likely to be true.

Everything else falls in the same way. As I have said, you need no formal education for this. Just have courage to point out unsupported nonsense.

I guess that should be enough for this post…

 

[grannymh]

Hi all, I’ve recently been in a very cordial conversation with an atheist regarding objective morality.
I have no way to counter his argument as I lack any formal education in philosophy.
I shall present his argument below & hope that someone may offer some insight or reasonable rebuttal to his case.

"+Dan Harte there are subjective truths and objective truths.
Are you actually saying that Quality is objective, and not relative to context and perspective?
subjective conclusions are unrelated to objective conclusions.

Quality is measured subjectively. Anything subjective is a matter of Qualitative measurement.

Quantity is measured objectively. Anything quantitative is measured objectively And while logic is objective, morality is a matter of pure Quality. Which means that by its own inherent logical mechanics, it’s not possible to be objective.

When was the last time you measured moral value irrespective of context?

When was the last time everyone in the world measured morality the same?

The quantitative value of a bar of gold is objective information. If it weighs 1 kilo, then it weighs that same 1 kilo for everyone. But if it’s good or bad is never a matter of objective determination irrespective of context. +Dan Harte considering Quality to be the same as Properties of something is an error due to the inaccuracy of language.

Quality, what is good or bad, is always subjective. Morality is a designation of Quality. Therefore inherently subjective and not possible to be objective.
Is it objectively bad to cause suffering? Absolutely not. It might be subjectively bad, but that’s still relative to context. And it’s not always subjectively bad either. It still depends on context. There’s no such thing as causing harm for its own sake. It serves a purpose for someone or it doesn’t happen. +Dan Harte*and by the way. In case we haven’t covered this already. Quantity and Quality are logical forms in which information is possible to exist. Quality being inherently subjective, since it exists exclusively relative to perspective and is created by the observer, is impossible to be measured objectively. Nobody can reach in to your mind and extract with precision how you feel about a particular experience.

And since morality is a judgment of quality, it’s impossible to be objectively dictated. And since your concept of god is impossible to exist without the fallacy of subjective logical content in objective logical form, your god is summarily proven impossible to exist.

The fundamental law of logic, most fundamental that I know of anyway, is that valid logical content is not possible to exist while in invalid logical form. Therefore, if the form of the logic is invalid, the content (being your specific god) is known to be invalid even without further examination or analysis.
When an abstract construct is proven impossible to be true, it’s equally impossible for any manifestation of that abstract to exist.
The beauty of logic is, that you don’t always have to know everything about a given topic in order to know if it’s possible to be true, or not possible to be true."

As you can see, here’s my dilemma.
Regards Dan

Please accept my apology. I got lost half way through post 1. :blushing:

What we are basically dealing with is the concept of “objective truth.” Objective truth exists independently of any human endeavor. Objective truth existed before we were born and will continue to exist after we die. Objective truth may contain both or either quality and quantity as long as the truth exists apart from human minds and human actions.

When it comes to morality, an objective truth is that the human person is worthy of profound respect. Humans who lived before us and after us are all worthy of profound respect.

In reality, subjective reasoning often is mixed with objective reasoning. However, subjective reasoning cannot change an objective truth.

 

[Latias]

The quantitative value of a bar of gold is objective information. If it weighs 1 kilo, then it weighs that same 1 kilo for everyone. But if it’s good or bad is never a matter of objective determination irrespective of context. +Dan Harte considering Quality to be the same as Properties of something is an error due to the inaccuracy of language.

Regards Dan

He should learn the distinction between weight and mass. The term “mass” actually has connotations with how many atoms are in something. It is understood that something that has a mass of a kilogram (such as gold or something that has a fairly homogenous composition) has a certain number of atoms.

A cursory glance at his argument suggests that it is quite weak. I think his “quality” and “quantity” dichotomy are false and obfuscatory epistemological and alethic distinctions. A statement such as that Jupiter is larger (in volume and in mass) than the Earth is not quantitative, but most people will reasonable say that is “objectively” true. Saying “Jupiter is large” cannot be considered to be objective, although that statement implicitly assumes some comparative assessment with human experience.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Dear Dan:

I have no intention to discourage you; just the opposite: I invite you to work hard and patiently on this matter. Ethics is a difficult subject (surely you have realized it already). First you need to get acquainted with metaphysics and epistemology. However…

I can imagine two ways to address the issue (Is the object of ethics “objective”?).

---

The first one has to do with the requirements for the integration of a community. Whenever we want to become part of one, we need to become familiar to its “mechanisms” (Every community is a system of rules and procedures). We need to act according to certain rules. Otherwise, we won’t fit. This is “objective”, isn’t it?

Then, we all know that there are a lot of different communities. The question would be: Do we desire to integrate a Community of communities? If so, it would be necessary to work on the design of the rules that should prevail in such Supra-Community. And I think that the development of those rules would be the result of a trial and error method. As an integration goes on, new situations appear and it becomes necessary to adjust the rules and probably create new ones. What would be the criteria to decide this?: The results of the application of the previous rules! Aren’t those results “objective”?

Your friend could say: Well, but what pleases an individual does not necessarily please another. And, of course, he would be right!, we all know this as a fact. But we need to come back to the question: Do we desire to integrate a community? In other words: Is it for you and for me more desirable our individual welfare or our welfare within the community?

There are numerous problems to solve in this approach. It requires a hard work, but such is intellectual life.

---

The other approach has an epistemological starting point. If you want to continue the discussion with your friend, I would advice you to request clarifications on every concept that he uses. Don’t fall in the error of believing that you know the meaning of his words. You need to become familiar with the uses he gives to them. It is a big mistake to oppose your views to his views prematurely. That would be a “dialogue” between two deaf guys.

He distinguishes objectivity from subjectivity. You should not think that this does not involve any problem. He associates qualitative “measurements” to subjectivity and quantitative measurements to objectivity. And further on he also seems to be associating Logic to objectivity. This involves certain difficulties that he would need to solve.

To measure is to compare one thing “A” to another thing “B” that has been conventionally established as a reference. Together with the reference, a specific procedure to perform the comparison is dictated (in order to deal with “circumstances”). It is expected that you and me will obtain the same results when we perform the comparison independently. That is more or less true. There is nothing “exactly identical” for any two individuals here. But we are satisfied with the ”more or less” provided it keeps within certain limits which we will define arbitrarily. Do you see?

I do not know about qualitative “measurements”. He is probably referring to statements like this one: “I like apples more than oranges”. There is of course a difference between this and an statement like “Copper is denser that Cobalt”. We know that many individuals can repeat the statement “I like apples more than oranges” and they will be saying something true, but not everybody would be able to do so. Regarding the second statement, it is supposed that everybody will be saying the truth if they repeat the sentence. We could say, though, “well, that depends on the circumstances: if Copper is at 150 degrees Celsius and Cobalt is at minus 150 degrees Celsius, Cobalt is denser than Copper”.

Your friend is right when he says that the validity of moral statements depends on circumstances (I think everybody is aware that Moral includes casuistry). However, as I have exemplified above, circumstances have an impact too on other statements that are typically considered objective. So, your friend rushes when he disqualifies moral statements because of their dependence on circumstances. Even the so called subjective judgements are objective: I do not like apples more than oranges on a whim, but due to a certain objective condition of my organism. If this condition is found in another individual’s body, then he will like apples more tan oranges as well , ”more or less”.

Logic! In which sense is it “objective”? Is it the result of quantitative measurements (comparisons) that we perform between entities which are in front of us and are accesible to everybody? No. Is it because there is a universal agreement among human beings about everything we say? Obviously not! Is it because it is considered that we should agree on some basic “logical forms”? Yes, and it is limited to that. But we need to add right away that some of those forms are not immediately evident to everybody.

Analogously, in Moral there are certain basic postulates about which it is considered that we should agree. Naturally, I am not saying that Logic and Moral are like the same thing, but there is an analogy between them; and it is weird that your friend opposes our human Logic to our human Moral, don’t you think?

This is another line of thought, and there is a long way in fort of us.

---

If, bottom line, the only thing your friend wants to say is that there are too many different opinions concerning Moral, he is right! But that would not be a very profound truth, would it?

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

 

[danharte]

I cannot tell you just how much im impressed by both your amazing grasp & understanding of such a difficult subject.
can you recommend any further reading on this difficult subject, I feel as though I’m way in over my head here but I find it fascinating & rewarding too.
I can say without a doubt, my poor brain has never worked so hard in my life, I’m developing frown lines to prove it lol.

 

[Bradski]

So, we have one unsupported statement. Probably false (probably, as it is not very clear if it actually means anything). It would be a good idea to ask him to clarify what he meant.

Otherwise we can offer a counterexample. “This is a bar of gold.” is qualitative (unless he offers a definition of “Quality” he wants to use). “This bar of gold weights 1 kg.” is quantitative. But those statements are related.

How is stating an objective fact that a particular object is a bar of gold be considered subjective? What is it subject to? It’s either a correct statement or it’s not.

And here we have a second unsupported statement (that quality is objective).

Then you need to prove that Dark Side of the Moon is better than Comfortably Numb (Peter will be along shortly with his proof and PR will catch up later with some turnips).

And a third unsupported assertion (that quantity is objective).

If you have three apples, you don’t have anything other than three apples. That is an objective fact. You don’t have to support it – it is axiomatic.

And a fourth (that morality is a matter of quality).

Debatable, but I would think that he means that some moral action can be described as better (or worse) than another.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is it objectively bad to cause suffering? Absolutely not.

true.

Do you see the contradiction?

First he asks if it is objectively bad to cause suffering. Then he says it is absolutely (objectively) not true that it is objectively bad to cause suffering.

Absolute = Objective.

 

[MPat]

How is stating an objective fact that a particular object is a bar of gold be considered subjective? What is it subject to? It’s either a correct statement or it’s not.

I said it is “qualitative”, not “subjective”. I would say that it is both qualitative and objective.

Then you need to prove that Dark Side of the Moon is better than Comfortably Numb (Peter will be along shortly with his proof and PR will catch up later with some turnips).

The statement said that anything subjective is qualitative and anything qualitative is subjective. A single example cannot establish that. But one counterexample (like “This is a bar of gold.” that is qualitative and objective) can disprove it.

If you have three apples, you don’t have anything other than three apples. That is an objective fact. You don’t have to support it – it is axiomatic.

Again, the statement (that you didn’t seem to quote accurately) said that *anything *objective is quantitative and anything quantitative is objective. Once again, you cannot demonstrate that with one example. And once again one counterexample (like “In scale of 1 to 10, goodness of pie would be 9.” that is quantitative, although you will probably accept that it is not objective) can disprove it.

Debatable, but I would think that he means that some moral action can be described as better (or worse) than another.

Maybe. Hard to say.

 

[Bradski]

The statement said that anything subjective is qualitative and anything qualitative is subjective. A single example cannot establish that. But one counterexample (like “This is a bar of gold.” that is qualitative and objective) can disprove it.

How is ‘This is a bar of gold’ qualatitive? And objective at the same time?

Again, the statement (that you didn’t seem to quote accurately) said that *anything *objective is quantitative and anything quantitative is objective. Once again, you cannot demonstrate that with one example. And once again one counterexample (like “In scale of 1 to 10, goodness of pie would be 9.” that is quantitative, although you will probably accept that it is not objective) can disprove it.

Well it’s obviously not objective or goodness of pie at the scale of 9 would always be true at all times for everyone (and I corrected the quote - my bad).

 

[MPat]

How is ‘This is a bar of gold’ qualatitive? And objective at the same time?

Well, if it is not qualitative, is it quantitative? In that case, is it associated with some number? I can’t think of any that would fit well…

And if it is not objective, is it subjective? But you do seem to say that it is not subjective:

How is stating an objective fact that a particular object is a bar of gold be considered subjective? What is it subject to? It’s either a correct statement or it’s not.

And if it is true that “This is a bar of gold” is qualitative and it is also true that it is objective, then, I guess, it can be said that it is qualitative and objective at the same time.

Well it’s obviously not objective or goodness of pie at the scale of 9 would always be true at all times for everyone (and I corrected the quote - my bad).

Nice to see that we agree here.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Dear Dan:

You can enjoy the reading of Plato’s Dialogues. In several of them, Plato presents Socrates as the first philosopher who defended the objectivity of ethics. Pay attention both to the content of the discussions and to the method Socrates used to discuss.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[danharte]

Dear Dan:

You can enjoy the reading of Plato’s Dialogues. In several of them, Plato presents Socrates as the first philosopher who defended the objectivity of ethics. Pay attention both to the content of the discussions and to the method Socrates used to discuss.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

Thanks for the recommendation, it’s very much appreciated
God bless

 

[danharte]

I’ve tried to move him away from the word “morality” as it seem like quite a generic term to me.
I’ve been focusing on “love” as a specific or defined aspect of morality.
My claim to him is that “love” is objective in that it’s an unwritten inbuilt universal abstract feeling that is understood by everyone equally.
I’ve given examples such as it would be objectively true that a baby objectively & subjectivity loves his mother. We can know that because we all share this inbuilt unspoken knowlage.
I’ve also stated that we can objectively know that a newly formed couple objectively love each other thus abstract for can be quantetive & therefor objective.
I’ve also touched on the other end of the scale by stating that it would be objectively true that a young child who loves his mother would objectively hate the person who kills his mother for no valid reason.
These are verbally quantifyable examples of objective morality
is this making any sense & do you see any problems with this approach

 

[danharte]

Sorry, I meant to say “abstract form” in the above post

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Dear Dan:

You can enjoy the reading of Plato’s Dialogues. In several of them, Plato presents Socrates as the first philosopher who defended the objectivity of ethics. Pay attention both to the content of the discussions and to the method Socrates used to discuss.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

Is there one of the dialogues in particular that you would recommend? Thanks.

 

[lmelahn]

Hi all, I’ve recently been in a very cordial conversation with an atheist regarding objective morality.
I have no way to counter his argument as I lack any formal education in philosophy.
I shall present his argument below & hope that someone may offer some insight or reasonable rebuttal to his case.

"+Dan Harte there are subjective truths and objective truths.
Are you actually saying that Quality is objective, and not relative to context and perspective?
subjective conclusions are unrelated to objective conclusions.

Quality is measured subjectively. Anything subjective is a matter of Qualitative measurement.

Quantity is measured objectively. Anything quantitative is measured objectively And while logic is objective, morality is a matter of pure Quality. Which means that by its own inherent logical mechanics, it’s not possible to be objective.

When was the last time you measured moral value irrespective of context?

When was the last time everyone in the world measured morality the same?

The quantitative value of a bar of gold is objective information. If it weighs 1 kilo, then it weighs that same 1 kilo for everyone. But if it’s good or bad is never a matter of objective determination irrespective of context. +Dan Harte considering Quality to be the same as Properties of something is an error due to the inaccuracy of language.

Quality, what is good or bad, is always subjective. Morality is a designation of Quality. Therefore inherently subjective and not possible to be objective.
Is it objectively bad to cause suffering? Absolutely not. It might be subjectively bad, but that’s still relative to context. And it’s not always subjectively bad either. It still depends on context. There’s no such thing as causing harm for its own sake. It serves a purpose for someone or it doesn’t happen. +Dan Harte*and by the way. In case we haven’t covered this already. Quantity and Quality are logical forms in which information is possible to exist. Quality being inherently subjective, since it exists exclusively relative to perspective and is created by the observer, is impossible to be measured objectively. Nobody can reach in to your mind and extract with precision how you feel about a particular experience.

And since morality is a judgment of quality, it’s impossible to be objectively dictated. And since your concept of god is impossible to exist without the fallacy of subjective logical content in objective logical form, your god is summarily proven impossible to exist.

The fundamental law of logic, most fundamental that I know of anyway, is that valid logical content is not possible to exist while in invalid logical form. Therefore, if the form of the logic is invalid, the content (being your specific god) is known to be invalid even without further examination or analysis.
When an abstract construct is proven impossible to be true, it’s equally impossible for any manifestation of that abstract to exist.
The beauty of logic is, that you don’t always have to know everything about a given topic in order to know if it’s possible to be true, or not possible to be true."

As you can see, here’s my dilemma.
Regards Dan

One problem is that “quantity” and “quality” are used by different philosophical schools in very different ways, especially quality.

However, let us leave that aside for a moment. A more serious problem is that your atheist friend seems to have accepted (without proof) the principle that only that which is quantifiable or measurable is real.

However, that clearly won’t do. Even scientists understand that different kinds of quantities are incommensurable. You can’t directly compare 30 grams with 30 degrees Kevin. (There might be some kind of predictable relationship between them in some systems, but mass and temperature are very different kinds of quantity.)

More à propos to the question of goodness, I find it hard to believe that your atheist friend seriously prefers illness to health, pain to absence of pain, sorrow to joy, paralysis to use of his limbs, and misery to happiness. (And I think it is obvious that the first member of each pair is evil, and the second one good.)

There might be circumstances in which it is worth sacrificing one good for the sake of a better one (enduring pain after surgery so as to be cured of a medical condition, giving up one’s life for the sake of one’s country, and so on), but our fundamental attraction to goodness remains.

This curious convergence of preferences to “good” things is actually our first clue as to what “goodness” actually is: the “good” is fundamentally whatever fulfills our (legitimate) desires. “Evil” is what deprives us of that.

That shows us that “good” and “evil” are not equivalent “qualities” (like different flavors of ice cream); rather, evil is the absence of good. Good and evil don’t differ the way one house differs from a neighboring house. They differ they way a properly built house differs from a house missing its roof.

That is enough to show that, although goodness does have a subjective component (clearly, it is “my” happiness that I am seeking), there is also a component that transcends our particular, subjective condition (I can’t help but seek happiness–I can’t seek my own misery).

 

[lmelahn]

Is there one of the dialogues in particular that you would recommend? Thanks.

The most classic one is probably the Republic, in which he discusses (among many other things) the Form of the Good. (See, for example, Book 6, 508a-e, in which Plato makes a comparison of the Form of the Good with the Sun.)

Plato’s basic idea is that if I make a statement, say, “Fido is a dog,” that can only be true to the degree that Fido participates in an idea, which for Plato is an extrinsic reality that transcends the material world. Hence, the statement “Fido is a dog” is exactly equivalent (for Plato) to saying “Fido participates in the idea of dog.” Each genus or species participates in a unique idea. (Note that for Plato the ideas are more real than the things that participate in them.)

So, argues Plato, we all agree that some things (men, actions, objects) are “good.” That means that there must be an idea (or “form,” which is the same thing) in which all good things participate. But the Form of the Good has to be a special one, in a way, because all things are “good” to some degree, so all things (even the ideas themselves) must participate in the Form of the Good.

In the Republic, the Form of the Good appears to be the “super-form” that rules all the others. (Plato was a very honest thinker, and he did not hesitate to modify his theory as he thought necessary, and we see him add other elements in later dialogues.)

I don’t know if I can accept all of Plato’s theory of forms, but the notion that all goodness participates in the Good Itself (whom we know to be God) is a good one. (I don’t, however, recommend trying this out on your atheist friend straight away; I don’t think he is ready for it.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t know if I can accept all of Plato’s theory of forms, but the notion that all goodness participates in the Good Itself (whom we know to be God) is a good one. (I don’t, however, recommend trying this out on your atheist friend straight away; I don’t think he is ready for it.)

C.S. Lewis argues somewhat along the line of the Platonic forms when he says that we have an idea of the form without knowing exactly what that idea is. If I remember right, he say we have an idea of perfection without having seen anything perfect. Where did this idea come from if not from the senses? So if perfection exists and we are constantly striving for it, we might well ask the atheist why we are constantly striving for something that doesn’t exist.

 

[MPat]

I’ve tried to move him away from the word “morality” as it seem like quite a generic term to me.
I’ve been focusing on “love” as a specific or defined aspect of morality.
My claim to him is that “love” is objective in that it’s an unwritten inbuilt universal abstract feeling that is understood by everyone equally.
I’ve given examples such as it would be objectively true that a baby objectively & subjectivity loves his mother. We can know that because we all share this inbuilt unspoken knowlage.
I’ve also stated that we can objectively know that a newly formed couple objectively love each other thus abstract for can be quantetive & therefor objective.
I’ve also touched on the other end of the scale by stating that it would be objectively true that a young child who loves his mother would objectively hate the person who kills his mother for no valid reason.
These are verbally quantifyable examples of objective morality
is this making any sense & do you see any problems with this approach

It might be a bit dangerous. The word “love” is a bit ambiguous; for example, that English word can be can be translated to Greek in three ways: “eros”, “philia” and “agape” (that has been discussed in encyclical “Deus Caritas Est”). The most relevant one, “agape” is not much of a feeling. As Catechism (St. Thomas Aquinas) says in paragraph 1766, “To love is to will the good of another.”.

Thus you might end up with some misunderstandings…