What does it mean if morality does not objectively exist?

[ericc]

If morality does not objectively exist, it means bullies win.

 

[Rau]

Does pain that you would be experiencing if surgery were performed on you without anaesthetic exist independently of your perception of the pain?

There is also a minor problem regarding your use of the present tense: can you say that the past exists (present tense) objectively?

I would distinguish between reality and our ability to gain access to information about it. That somebody is experiencing pain – physical pain – seems to me to be an aspect of reality. We can imagine a device that simultaneously inflicts the same kind of pain in the same part of the body on a number of people. How many people have to be in pain for it to go beyond subjective?

In light of all this, I wonder whether you hold that there is an objective standard or morality?

 

[PRmerger]

This topic was being addressed in a thread that was inexplicably deleted, but I’m still interested in continuing the discussion.

So: can we behave morally if there is no such thing as an objectively true moral standard? Ignore for a bit the question of whether we can agree on what that standard might be, and just deal with the question I raised above.

Most people think of themselves as moral individuals: pretty much everyone has a moral code of some kind. The question is, is there any rational reason for having such a standard if morality exists only subjectively? As a practical matter it certainly makes sense to appear to follow the law and to be a “good” person, but appearing to be good and being good are not the same thing, especially if “good” itself is a meaningless attribute.

It appears to me that if right and wrong have no objective meaning then there is no reason to behave as if they did, which means that it makes no sense to have a moral standard. Why would I conform my behavior to a standard that doesn’t actually exist? Instead why shouldn’t I do whatever I perceive to be in my best interest, regardless of what that entails? As a practical matter I would want to appear like Dr. Jekyll, but in actuality I would want to act like Mr. Hyde.

Ender

Then it would mean that no one could ever say: it is wrong to kill your daughter for being gang raped.

That would be as ridiculous as saying: it is wrong to like ketchup with your chili.

 

[Ender]

Does pain that you would be experiencing if surgery were performed on you without anaesthetic exist independently of your perception of the pain?

If you have something to say about the objective existence (or lack thereof) of morality that would be useful. This…isn’t.

I would distinguish between reality and our ability to gain access to information about it.

I would too. I believe I already stated that morality must not only objectively exist but that we must have some way of determining what it is. If it exists but we cannot perceive it then its existence is irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Then it would mean that no one could ever say: it is wrong to kill your daughter for being gang raped.

That would be as ridiculous as saying: it is wrong to like ketchup with your chili.

Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. The purpose for starting this thread was to show that this is the inexorable conclusion arising from the assumption that morality does not objectively exist.

Ender

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If morality does not objectively exist, it means bullies win.

Since the bullies always win, that answers the question. There is no objective morality.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Once again you’re not hearing what I am saying. It’s not that the students have a problem with something the physics professor is saying–i.e. they thought it might be wrong–he is simply teaching physics and they know the concepts are true, but just can’t understand them, just can’t grasp them. Their inability to grasp the physics doesn’t invalidate physics and they don’t let their inability to grasp the physics cause them to denounce physics as a pseudo science and propose changes to it that they can grasp.

Einstein could not “grasp” the Newtonian concept of absolute space and time - which was taught by the physicists of that age. Other teachings were just fine. The nature of the disagreement is important, both in physics and in theology. The important difference is that in physics you can prove that the proposed ideas are incorrect, in theology - not so much.

If one doesn’t believe the Church is what is says it is–then it is beyond me why one would want to remain in that Church.

Probably because they agree with some (maybe even with most) of the teachings, and that agreement is important for them. They may also hope that the teachings they find incorrect - will be rectified - eventually.

 

[Peter_J]

Einstein could not “grasp” the Newtonian concept of absolute space and time

Heh.

 

[PseuTonym]

In light of all this, I wonder whether you hold that there is an objective standard of morality?

The phrase “objectively exist” isn’t clear to me. Perhaps we can begin with an example that has nothing to do with a strategy for arriving at a particular answer to a particular question. If the phrase “objectively exist” is meaningful, then it should be possible to understand it without being confined to one particular question or one particular topic.

If somebody complains of an ache or pain, then there are various professional specialists who might be consulted, such as a dentist, or a physician who is a general practitioner. If the pain corresponds to a recognizable physical problem in some part of the body, then there is an objectively existing medical condition. However, is the ache or pain itself something that objectively exists?

 

[Rau]

The phrase “objectively exist” isn’t clear to me.

My question to you did not use that expression.

 

[PseuTonym]

My question to you did not use that expression.

I apologize for the error.

A mechanical standard that includes no vagueness and no wiggle room for relying upon (name removed by moderator)uts of opinion would be an objective standard, although it might not actually coincide with anybody’s conception of accurate moral judgment.

I cannot recall seeing any example of an objective standard of morality, but I imagine that it would be possible to create one.

In practice, a standard of morality is useless unless it is self-imposed by people who accept the standard of morality. Otherwise, we seem to be considering law rather than morality. The requirement that it be something that people will self-impose puts a constraint on the design of a standard of morality.

Another important issue is that if two alternative goals are to be compared based on some standard of morality, then it’s not necessarily the case that a goal assigned a higher moral value will be a goal that people are more motivated to attempt to achieve, even if we consider two goals that are equally likely to be achieved (if pursued). Of course, goals aren’t randomly generated, so we would also have to consider the effect of having a particular standard of morality on the formation of goals, in particular, on what goals are thought of.