Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Inspired by this post - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 89#p248789 - but by no means directed at Andrew, or any particular individual. it was just that I saw the post and thought that it would make an interesting debate.

Do you believe in objective morality?

(Or, if you hate the 'b' word as much as I do, have you come to a rational decision that there is an over-arching morality that supersedes individual decisions - an absolute right and wrong in the world?)

And if you do, then:

• Why do you?
• What acts do you classify as good? And bad?
• Are there any exceptions to your absolute moral categories?

And if you don't, then:

• Why not?
• Is there absolutely nothing that you would categorise as intrinsically bad? Genocide? Infant rape? TV Evangelism?
• Are there any exceptions to your moral relativism?

And to both groups, what role does free-will have in this argument? How much does nature and nurture excuse one from ones actions?

I must confess that I tend to come down on the 'don't' side of this argument. Ultimately, once we have lived out our brief existence here, we are just one more footnote in the Earth's genetic heritage - stealing some kid's marbles in primary school matters not a jot - crank up the scale and the doings of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are just as insignificant - another notch and who really cares about the dissolute lifestyle of Homo habilis?

I hope that this generates some interesting (but civilised) argument.

[starr]

Inspired by this post - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 89#p248789 - but by no means directed at Andrew, or any particular individual. it was just that I saw the post and thought that it would make an interesting debate.

Do you believe in objective morality?

(Or, if you hate the 'b' word as much as I do, have you come to a rational decision that there is an over-arching morality that supersedes individual decisions - an absolute right and wrong in the world?)

And if you do, then:

• Why do you?
• What acts do you classify as good? And bad?
• Are there any exceptions to your absolute moral categories?

And if you don't, then:

• Why not?
• Is there absolutely nothing that you would categorise as intrinsically bad? Genocide? Infant rape? TV Evangelism?
• Are there any exceptions to your moral relativism?

And to both groups, what role does free-will have in this argument? How much does nature and nurture excuse one from ones actions?

I must confess that I tend to come down on the 'don't' side of this argument. Ultimately, once we have lived out our brief existence here, we are just one more footnote in the Earth's genetic heritage - stealing some kid's marbles in primary school matters not a jot - crank up the scale and the doings of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are just as insignificant - another notch and who really cares about the dissolute lifestyle of Homo habilis?

I hope that this generates some interesting (but civilised) argument.

I don't think there is any such thing as an 'objective' morality.
[*]Why not?[/u]
If morals were objective there would be no such thing as a moral dilemma. An objective morality would have to apply in exactly the same way for every 'human' regardless of culture, religion etc. Everybody would have identical morals. Where would such an 'objective' moral code come from in the first place? The origin of an hypothesised 'objective morality' appeals to supernatural/religious themes IMO.

[*]Is there absolutely nothing that you would categorise as intrinsically bad? Genocide? Infant rape? TV Evangelism?[/u]
I don't believe that anything is 'intrinsically' bad as that would imply the existence of an objective morality. I have decided based on my own subjective morality that I think some things are 'bad' and some things are 'good'. Just because my morals are subjective, does not mean that I don't feel very strongly about some of them. I do feel very strongly about some moral issues and not so strongly about others. Because I realise that morality is subjective I understand that not all people will feel that same way that I do about these issues and that if I feel strongly about something I'd better have some damn good arguments to back up my position.


[*]Are there any exceptions to your moral relativism?[/list][/u]
Nope. No exceptions. There are obviously some things that are very widely held morals (such as not raping infants). There would not be many people who would argue against something like that as most people find it abhorrent. That doesn't mean it is 'objectively morally wrong' it just means that there is general agreement about that aspect of subjective morality.

[Sisifo]

[quote="Xamonas Chegwé"]

Yes, with only a small consideration: No concept is right or wrong; good or bad; words, dictionary definitions like war, rape, torture, have no moral value; they are dialectical onanism. But acts, practical acts, the turn of the concept into the universe, is right or wrong.

And if you do, then:

[*]Why do you? [/b]
Because I have an empathy towards suffering, and I guess that everyone has, except psychopaths, which by definition lack that empathy.
[*]What acts do you classify as good? And bad?[/b]
Everything that causes suffering is bad, and its degree of evil is the degree of suffering it creates. Good it's whatever eases suffering.
[*]Are there any exceptions to your absolute moral categories?[/b]
No.
A person can be guilty or not, of the act, depending on information and responsibility. But the act is either good or bad (or neutral) in itself.

And to both groups, what role does free-will have in this argument? How much does nature and nurture excuse one from ones actions?
Personally I don't judge the people; I only analyze the act. The act is good or bad. The level of responsibility and "free will" of the actor relies on many circumstances; information and education are the main ones.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yes, with only a small consideration: No concept is right or wrong; good or bad; words, dictionary definitions like war, rape, torture, have no moral value; they are dialectical onanism. But acts, practical acts, the turn of the concept into the universe, is right or wrong.

And if you do, then:

[*]Why do you? [/b]
Because I have an empathy towards suffering, and I guess that everyone has, except psychopaths, which by definition lack that empathy.
[*]What acts do you classify as good? And bad?[/b]
Everything that causes suffering is bad, and its degree of evil is the degree of suffering it creates. Good it's whatever eases suffering.
[*]Are there any exceptions to your absolute moral categories?[/b]
No.
A person can be guilty or not, of the act, depending on information and responsibility. But the act is either good or bad (or neutral) in itself.

And to both groups, what role does free-will have in this argument? How much does nature and nurture excuse one from ones actions?
Personally I don't judge the people; I only analyze the act. The act is good or bad. The level of responsibility and "free will" of the actor relies on many circumstances; information and education are the main ones.

Interesting answer. So what of acts that both cause and alleviate suffering? Is it morally reprehensible to cause suffering in others while alleviating it in oneself? Why is one's own suffering to be bourn while that of others is to be avoided? And what of an act of murder that occurs quickly, with the victim having no foreknowledge and minimal suffering? I am not saying I disagree with you, I would just like to hear some elaboration upon your theme.

[Sisifo]

Interesting answer. So what of acts that both cause and alleviate suffering? Is it morally reprehensible to cause suffering in others while alleviating it in oneself? Why is one's own suffering to be bourn while that of others is to be avoided? And what of an act of murder that occurs quickly, with the victim having no foreknowledge and minimal suffering? I am not saying I disagree with you, I would just like to hear some elaboration upon your theme.

Suffering is not only pain. It's sadness, misery, loss, and death, an unwanted death is suffering.

Cause and alleviate suffering... Do you mean, like eating the last steak, or what? When situations of You or Me happen, the survival instinct clicks. It's more powerful than the empathy.

But usually what people use is some kind of preventive survival instinct, and address potential suffering with real suffering. That, puts more weight to the real suffering over the virtual one. If for some reason it happened the reverse, like addressing someone's potential suffering with factual own suffering, the own would have more weight.

This line editing: My point is that people is not morally reprehensible for anything. Only that the act is morally right or wrong. Then and depending of other things, the person can be guilty or not.

[FBM]

In the phrase "Objective morality", the word 'objective' is the greater fiction. That alone is enough to disqualify the concept.

We have 4 known forces in the universe, which is composed of 4% known matter and 96% dark matter/energy. There is no known 'moral' substance or energy in the universe. We have been studying nature and trying to the decipher its governing laws for centuries, and the most current representations of those laws contain nothing remotely moral, to my knowledge. To the contrary, they seem completely devoid of good/bad, right/wrong value judgements.

My current point of view (always subject to revision as new information is presented) is that morality is an emergent human-made value, and it depends upon human perception/cognition for its very existence, therefore it is by definition subjective. Whether or not it is also relative is probably the better question, and maybe what the OP was getting at in the first place. That it's also relative seems demonstrable by a quick survey of the variances in the legal systems of human societies throughout time and location.

A truly objective morality for humans would seem to require at least one higher-than-human sentient being that could decide upon and impose moral laws. I see no such evidence of such a being, leading me to assume that morality is manmade, and therefore subjective, and therefore relative.

[Sisifo]

In the phrase "Objective morality", the word 'objective' is the greater fiction. That alone is enough to disqualify the concept.

We have 4 known forces in the universe, which is composed of 4% known matter and 96% dark matter/energy. There is no known 'moral' substance or energy in the universe. We have been studying nature and trying to the decipher its governing laws for centuries, and the most current representations of those laws contain nothing remotely moral, to my knowledge. To the contrary, they seem completely devoid of good/bad, right/wrong value judgements.

It is also devoid, by the "energy rules" of pain, pleasure, and any other feeling that needs a nervous system. Approaching living organisms with physics law, doesn't seem to be a very explanatory way.

My current point of view (always subject to revision as new information is presented) is that morality is an emergent human-made value, and it depends upon human perception/cognition for its very existence, therefore it is by definition subjective. Whether or not it is also relative is probably the better question, and maybe what the OP was getting at in the first place. That it's also relative seems demonstrable by a quick survey of the variances in the legal systems of human societies throughout time and location.

A truly objective morality for humans would seem to require at least one higher-than-human sentient being that could decide upon and impose moral laws. I see no such evidence of such a being, leading me to assume that morality is manmade, and therefore subjective, and therefore relative.

The input of laws is misleading. Moral is not the same as ethics, or social order, and "objective", is obviously a misrepresentative word, considering moral involves subjects.

And when we have finished all the witticisms, and spent the needed time about words, definition and other -as I put first- dialectical onanism, we still suffer or feel drained at the sight of suffering.

That it is not invariable suffering, and maybe I cry about it and you just feel like shit? So? In the same sense the same cut can make me yell or make you pass out. But nobody in his senses would use that "relativist" argument to say that "pain doesn't exist".

[FBM]

It is also devoid, by the "energy rules" of pain, pleasure, and any other feeling that needs a nervous system. Approaching living organisms with physics law, doesn't seem to be a very explanatory way.

I was trying to point out that 'objective' can't apply to morality; it's inherently subjective. The physical laws that govern the universe are the best representation of the 'objective', but of course, they're filtered through human consciousness and limited sensory organs, too, so they don't fit the definition of 'objective', either, really. Just the best we can do.

The input of laws is misleading. Moral is not the same as ethics, or social order, and "objective", is obviously a misrepresentative word, considering moral involves subjects.

Yep. We agree on that.

And when we have finished all the witticisms, and spent the needed time about words, definition and other -as I put first- dialectical onanism, we still suffer or feel drained at the sight of suffering.

That it is not invariable suffering, and maybe I cry about it and you just feel like shit? So? In the same sense the same cut can make me yell or make you pass out. But nobody in his senses would use that "relativist" argument to say that "pain doesn't exist".

No, I wouldn't say that at all. Only that the whole of morality, like individual suffering, is inextricably subjective and from there, relative. That's not to diminish its importance, and I'm not trying to argue that we should be indifferent to either suffering or morality/ethics. I only had one real point to make, and that was that the inherent impossibility of a truly objective perspective negates the whole concept of an objective basis for morality. The point that can really be challenged is whether or not it's relative, I think.

[Rum]

I think the word 'objective' could be replaces with 'social' or possibly 'collective' . Objective implies the notion of Platonic 'forms'., i.e. that somewhere there is a preformed ideal, which clearly isn't the case with morality.

More accurately I think groups of humans (families, tribes, local groups and ultimately Nations and the world) decide on what is acceptable behaviour at their level and then use rules to enforce them. Some of these are internalised (thus the feeling of 'guilt' when they are broken). Many are up for debate and argument too, so one person might think throwing litter is quite acceptable, but another feel it was very 'anti-social', which is the key word I think.

What seems to happen is that the more serious the infringement the more agreement and consensus there is that the rule is right and the behaviour is wrong. Ultimately of course, removed from the social context it matters not a hoot what you do.

[Trolldor]

There is no such thing as objective morality without an objective standard and an objective arbiter to rule on that standard.

[FBM]

There is no such thing as objective morality without an objective standard and an objective arbiter to rule on that standard.

derail]The same statement works if you substitute universe/world/reality for 'morality', too. [/derail]

[Trolldor]

There is no such thing as objective morality without an objective standard and an objective arbiter to rule on that standard.

derail]The same statement works if you substitute universe/world/reality for 'morality', too. [/derail]

No, it doesn't.

[Sisifo]

There is no such thing as objective morality without an objective standard and an objective arbiter to rule on that standard.

derail]The same statement works if you substitute universe/world/reality for 'morality', too. [/derail]

No, it doesn't.

With such precious argumentation and beautiful logic, the thread is closed, of course.

[Trolldor]

It's relatively easy to see the substantial difference to the corporeal and the metaphysical. Morality is dependant on interpretation, nuances, the birth and death of stars has nothing to do with interpretation. It either happens or it doesn't. There is no 'self-defence' in the creation of black holes, there's no 'provocation' in asteroids. Objective morality would require the interpretation of subjective experiences, and therefore can only be applied by a conscious and objective arbiter - a being with the ability to interpret the subjective by comparison to an objective criteria.

[Rum]

It's relatively easy to see the substantial difference to the corporeal and the metaphysical. Morality is dependant on interpretation, nuances, the birth and death of stars has nothing to do with interpretation. It either happens or it doesn't. There is no 'self-defence' in the creation of black holes, there's no 'provocation' in asteroids. Objective morality would require the interpretation of subjective experiences, and therefore can only be applied by a conscious and objective arbiter - a being with the ability to interpret the subjective by comparison to an objective criteria.

I beg to differ. If one looks at an ordinary dining room chair for example, it is a chair because as human beings we define it as such. In 'reality' it is a bunch of wood glued together. Or perhaps it is just pieces of tree brought together in a pattern. Or perhaps it is the cells or molecules which make up the 'chair' temporarily arranged in a certain way. I would argue that it is only human consciousness and it 'projection' onto objects with gives them any sort of definition.

I would agree that this subjective material is of a different order to 'morality' and other abstract psychological constructions, but I would also argue that is is only marginally more substantial. The consequences of not adhering to certain patterns of morality can also be rather more serious for you than sitting on the floor instead of a chair!