Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[FBM]

Is it possible to experience 'objective' reality? Or to experience anything 'objectively'?

[leo-rcc]

I don't know. I am keeping an eye on this thread to see how it develops.

For now I believe that morality is subjective, as what one finds morally wrong is not by definition morally wrong by others.

[FBM]

I don't know. I am keeping an eye on this thread to see how it develops.

For now I believe that morality is subjective, as what one finds morally wrong is not by definition morally wrong by others.

One thing that strikes me is that we can make nouns for both concrete and abstract entities, yet the ease with which we do that blurs the distinction. And that distinction is the very thing that we use to shape our ontologies. If we didn't do that, we would have no recourse to object when someone says that GwodTM exists or a magical, firebreathing, undetectable dragon lives in the basement.

Those things may very well exist as abstract entities alongside their negations, because abstractions carry no ontological weight. The statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both equally ontologically extant. IOW, there are no conservation laws with abstract entities, whereas sciences that deal with concrete entities, such as chemistry and physics, demand strict conservation of mass. Abstractions vanish without a trace routinely, but concrete entities decay and recombine with nothing gained nor lost in the larger system.

Without applying the concrete/abstract razor, we could neither affirm nor deny the existence of anything. That isn't to say that abstract entities don't exist, only to say that their existence is contingent upon subjective consciousness, and a linguistic product of a perception. Ephemeral.

Morality is an abstract concept, unlike the keyboard I'm using right now, which has both concrete and abstract reality. Morality has no components or qualities that aren't the products of the workings of human minds. Legitimate, but subjective, contingent and relative.

[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.

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!

A rock is a rock independant of us. How we translate the information is irrelevant, no matter how we label the concept. How we comprehend the universe means nothing absolutely nothing in relation to its existence. The universe is objective and always gives off the same 'information'. Our view may be 'subjective' insofar as how we translate the information, but that information will be there whether we are or not. Morality is different, morality only exists because we created it, and morality only exists because of the societies we've manufactured. Morality changes from society to society, from context to context. A murder is not a murder when it's in self-defence, theft is immoral to the baker but not to the hungry man. A rock is always a rock whether we're blind or deaf or dumb, whether you're a catepillar or a bat or another rock.

[FBM]

A rock is a rock independant of us. How we translate the information is irrelevant, no matter how we label the concept. How we comprehend the universe means nothing absolutely nothing in relation to its existence. The universe is objective and always gives off the same 'information'. Our view may be 'subjective' insofar as how we translate the information, but that information will be there whether we are or not. Morality is different, morality only exists because we created it, and morality only exists because of the societies we've manufactured. Morality changes from society to society, from context to context. A murder is not a murder when it's in self-defence, theft is immoral to the baker but not to the hungry man. A rock is always a rock whether we're blind or deaf or dumb, whether you're a catepillar or a bat or another rock.

Bare assertion is bare.

[Sisifo]

I don't know. I am keeping an eye on this thread to see how it develops.

For now I believe that morality is subjective, as what one finds morally wrong is not by definition morally wrong by others.

One thing that strikes me is that we can make nouns for both concrete and abstract entities, yet the ease with which we do that blurs the distinction. And that distinction is the very thing that we use to shape our ontologies. If we didn't do that, we would have no recourse to object when someone says that GwodTM exists or a magical, firebreathing, undetectable dragon lives in the basement.

Those things may very well exist as abstract entities alongside their negations, because abstractions carry no ontological weight. The statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both equally ontologically extant. IOW, there are no conservation laws with abstract entities, whereas sciences that deal with concrete entities, such as chemistry and physics, demand strict conservation of mass. Abstractions vanish without a trace routinely, but concrete entities decay and recombine with nothing gained nor lost in the larger system.

Without applying the concrete/abstract razor, we could neither affirm nor deny the existence of anything. That isn't to say that abstract entities don't exist, only to say that their existence is contingent upon subjective consciousness, and a linguistic product of a perception. Ephemeral.

Morality is an abstract concept, unlike the keyboard I'm using right now, which has both concrete and abstract reality. Morality has no components or qualities that aren't the products of the workings of human minds. Legitimate, but subjective, contingent and relative.

Mirror neurons seem to be the physical cause of empathy and morality. Inclonclusive, sure, but if it is not mirror neurons it would be another cell. As social empathy is an evolutionary treat, and not a meme, it must have and has a biological base.

As I said, moral is as real and as subjective as pain. Same nervous base.

You can discuss its intensity, and even point down exceptions, and freaks, and anything. Those would be semantics that won't make pain pleasant, or vivisecting a desirable treat. If any of those would happen, both cases would be matters for medical science.

[FBM]

Mirror neurons seem to be the physical cause of empathy and morality. Inclonclusive, sure, but if it is not mirror neurons it would be another cell. As social empathy is an evolutionary treat, and not a meme, it must have and has a biological base.

Empathy, yes, morality, no. Morality is a abstract construct, derived from the individual, fleeting experiences of empathy. Otherwise, all organisms of the same genus/species would have the same moralities, whereas we observe extreme variations among them. Buddhist monks won't kill anything, but certain cultures even kill and eat other humans.

As I said, moral is as real and as subjective as pain. Same nervous base.

Does morality participate in the same concrete reality as the computer you're using, or the photons streaming at you from your monitor? If so, how can you explain that a singular entity, morality, can simultaneously present so many self-contradictory qualities and manifestations? Is there 'pain' over and above the indivudual's experience of it, or is it just a convenient, abstract label that roughly designates a wide range of experiences in order to facilitate communication? We shouldn't confuse convenient linguistic designations with concrete reality.

You can discuss its intensity, and even point down exceptions, and freaks, and anything. Those would be semantics that won't make pain pleasant, or vivisecting a desirable treat. If any of those would happen, both cases would be matters for medical science.

You and I agree on just about everthing except the minor, hair-splitting details on how to use words to describe what we mean. Please keep in mind that hair-splitting over semantics is just an exercise for me; our conclusions are so close to identical that whatever minor differences in our verbal representations, we'd still really enjoy sitting down together to enjoy a pint or two.

[Drewish]

Don't have time to discuss this at the moment. Just posting here to remind myself to come back to this thread later on today when I can give it the focus it deserves.

[Trolldor]

A rock is a rock independant of us. How we translate the information is irrelevant, no matter how we label the concept. How we comprehend the universe means nothing absolutely nothing in relation to its existence. The universe is objective and always gives off the same 'information'. Our view may be 'subjective' insofar as how we translate the information, but that information will be there whether we are or not. Morality is different, morality only exists because we created it, and morality only exists because of the societies we've manufactured. Morality changes from society to society, from context to context. A murder is not a murder when it's in self-defence, theft is immoral to the baker but not to the hungry man. A rock is always a rock whether we're blind or deaf or dumb, whether you're a catepillar or a bat or another rock.

Bare assertion is bare.

Nice to see you address the points there. What more could I expect from an insurance company.

[FBM]

A rock is a rock independant of us. How we translate the information is irrelevant, no matter how we label the concept. How we comprehend the universe means nothing absolutely nothing in relation to its existence. The universe is objective and always gives off the same 'information'. Our view may be 'subjective' insofar as how we translate the information, but that information will be there whether we are or not. Morality is different, morality only exists because we created it, and morality only exists because of the societies we've manufactured. Morality changes from society to society, from context to context. A murder is not a murder when it's in self-defence, theft is immoral to the baker but not to the hungry man. A rock is always a rock whether we're blind or deaf or dumb, whether you're a catepillar or a bat or another rock.

Bare assertion is bare.

Nice to see you address the points there. What more could I expect from an insurance company.

I was a bit sloppy in saying that, wasn't I? I highlighted some things that I hope you'll expand upon.
Not saying I disagree, exactly, only that I need more info to figure out how you know these points.

[Trolldor]

Because it's never been proven that any of the natural laws (of physics, chemistry, biology ad infinitum) rely upon human existence, and it has been proven that the same 'laws' which helped create the planets and stars, and the familiar terrestrial life forms, are the same laws that govern our own existence. They (the laws) obviously had to exist before we did, or you've got yourself a fucking rift in the space-time contiuum. If the laws pre-existed human existence, then logically anything they could have produce could have existed outside of human existence.
Speculation that anything within the universe is dependant on a human presence is worse than a creationism, there's not even any evidence to misinterpret or doctor, let alone any supporting evidence.

[FBM]

Because it's never been proven that any of the natural laws (of physics, chemistry, biology ad infinitum) rely upon human existence, and it has been proven that the same 'laws' which helped create the planets and stars, and the familiar terrestrial life forms, are the same laws that govern our own existence. They (the laws) obviously had to exist before we did, or you've got yourself a fucking rift in the space-time contiuum. If the laws pre-existed human existence, then logically anything they could have produce could have existed outside of human existence.
Speculation that anything within the universe is dependant on a human presence is worse than a creationism, there's not even any evidence to misinterpret or doctor, let alone any supporting evidence.

Ah! I got it! We really do agree more than our choices of words reveal. I was trying (ineptly) to say that our formulation/interpretation of those laws are necessarily filtered through our limited and fallible consciousnesses, not that the whole of existence depends upon mere human perception.* I'm not going the Gotswami route, by no means.

*Disclaimer: If something I wrote previously contradicts this statement, disregard either that statement or this one. Preferably both. Or neither. Whichever works. I'm easy.

[Trolldor]

I got you the first time, just didn't understand why you were questioning my obvious rightness.

The cause of morality must be an objective law or system, biologically sourced (or it never would have arisen in the first place), but the application is subjective. What form the morality takes is entirely dependant upon human invention.

[FBM]

I got you the first time, just didn't understand why you were questioning my obvious rightness.

The cause of morality must be an objective law or system, biologically sourced (or it never would have arisen in the first place), but the application is subjective. What form the morality takes is entirely dependant upon human invention.

I love you. I've always loved you, but have been too shy to confess my feelings.
















In non-MBFlish, that means 'I agree'.

[Drewish]

I believe in Objective morality in the same way that I believe in an Objective reality. I accept that the universe is there and that it exists outside of my perception of it. (In other words, I have a subjective understanding of what is still itself an Objective thing.)

I hold that the truth must be the foundation of all knowledge (I do not accept self delusion as a legitimate route to happiness) and therefore reverence for the truth must be paramount to morality. (In other words, integrity is the source of all morality.)

There are no exceptions. Though that isn't to say that I have faultlessly upheld my moral code.

As far as free will goes, by understanding that morality and the universe are objective, but that my own understandings and perceptions of them are subjective, this implies that I be vigorous in introspectively critically analyzing my own beliefs and allow others to do the same. It does not mean that they are not wrong and that I am not right when I disagree with someone else, I just do not have the authority it assume that I must be correct (and certainly not to impose my views on others.)

Nature vs nurture does not matter. You are what and who you are. I make no excuses for the decisions that I have made, nor do I ask others to amend their belief systems to accommodate my wants or desires. If I am unable to exist by my own power then you have no responsibility or obligations toward me. If my actions impose on your being and existence then you have every right to defend yourself from me.