Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[FBM]

@MBF - I don't doubt that many or most morals are subjective - certainly in the cases of culture clashes the morals appear to be fairly subjective. The only point that I was trying to make was that some moral values are better at replicating themselves (through genes) than others, and I base this mostly on the trolley problem (which, insistently, I first read in one of Richard Dawkins' books (probably the god delusion) where he's discussing morals). The trolley problem seems to indicate that people have some intrinsic moral structure that isn't taught that governs how they will decide in which direction to send a trolley given the consequences of their actions. Thus if these morals are better at replicating themselves than other morals then I'm asking isn't there an objective basis for at least some morals.

To give another (fairly stupid) example. If it was considered moral for a mother to eat her children on their 2nd birthday, then it would be pretty obvious this would be a huge disadvantage to the mother. Likely the genes of anyone who thought the eating of their children was moral would not replicate too well. Can we therefore say objectively that eating your children on their second birthday isn't moral? Or at least say that there is an objective basis for us to think that eating our own children isn't moral?

I see what you mean, but if you replace 'moral' with 'survival instinct', would there be any qualitative difference? I suggest that we apply Occam's razor and take the simpler explanation that still explains the observed phenomena. IOW, we really don't need the concept of morality at all, whether subjective or objective. Evolution and mimetics are simpler explanations that thoroughly explain the phenomena more efficiently, ie, with fewer (abstract) entities. The word 'morality' carries a connotation of a 'higher power' or something outside and more inclusive than the human intellect that decides on issues of right/wrong, to which humans must obey or suffer. The word 'ethics' doesn't carry that connotation. Ethics is easily seen as culture-based, contingent, relative, flexible and man-made. Yes, an individual's behavior, in general, certainly does contribute to its survival, but it's simply not necessary to employ abstract and nebulous concepts such as morality to explain it, is it? Evolution and memetics address all of those issues much more efficiently, it seems.

[Drewish]

MBF )Well FBM but you changed it so...) your defense of metaphysics is way off the mark. I know exactly what I'm talking about and saying that my opinion is coming from my ignorance or lack of effort to even read your post? Unless something is consistent with ALL the hard sciences (Chemistry and backwards, we can debate biology) it is clearly wrong. metaphysics IS nothing more than bs speculation. Your defense of it is built on altering the very definition of the word (Which has happened 5 separate times here from different people who rather than refuting what I'm saying try to reinterpret my words to make it appear like I'm saying something else.) Do here's a nice clean revision for you, change my assertion that metaphysics is crap to the statement that any philosophy that justifies itself on innately unprovable hypothesis or on assumptions that have been proven by science to be false, is not an acceptable philosophy.

And everyone. From now on if your disagreement with me is predicated on a differing opinion as to the definition of a word, then have the decency to let me clarify how I am using the word (as littlebitofnonsense did) rather than claim that because my definition does not match what you claim is the definition, that I am obviously ignorant or am wrong. That is word play. It's not an honest debating strategy, and I can't believe I'm having to say this AGAIN.

[FBM]

MBF )Well FBM but you changed it so...) your defense of metaphysics is way off the mark. I know exactly what I'm talking about and saying that my opinion is coming from my ignorance or lack of effort to even read your post?

OK, that's a bald assertion, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. If you don't mind, would you back that up with some evidence to support your definition of metaphysics is superior to the definition used in both philosophy and science?

Unless something is consistent with ALL the hard sciences (Chemistry and backwards, we can debate biology) it is clearly wrong.

Does your position have support from "ALL the hard sciences"? We have yet to see examples of the "objective facts" that you claim to base your position upon. Please provide these data so that we can understand your rationale more clearly. If possible, please also include supporting data from "ALL the hard sciences" so that we can clearly see how your position satisfies your own criterion.

metaphysics IS nothing more than bs speculation.

You're engaged passionately in metaphysics at the moment. The position you're defending is a metaphysical one. This is a discussion of a metaphysical topic.

Your defense of it is built on altering the very definition of the word (Which has happened 5 separate times here from different people who rather than refuting what I'm saying try to reinterpret my words to make it appear like I'm saying something else.)

I haven't altered any definition. I've only presented a universally-accepted definition that is at variance with yours. If philosophers, physicists and philologists agreee that morality is a metaphysical concept, and only you disagree....

Do here's a nice clean revision for you, change my assertion that metaphysics is crap to the statement that any philosophy that justifies itself on innately unprovable hypothesis or on assumptions that have been proven by science to be false, is not an acceptable philosophy.

If you'd bother to read the philosophical/scientific definition of 'metaphysics' instead of stubbornly clinging to your own erroneous misperception of what it involves, you'd see that all scientists (and virtually all people, including yourself in this very discussion), do routinely, enthusiastically engage in metaphysics (but not the kind that you're thinking of). Theoretical physicists, for example, choose to engage in metaphysics more heavily than in experimental physics. Look it up.

And everyone. From now on if your disagreement with me is predicated on a differing opinion as to the definition of a word, then have the decency to let me clarify how I am using the word (as littlebitofnonsense did) rather than claim that because my definition does not match what you claim is the definition, that I am obviously ignorant or am wrong. That is word play. It's not an honest debating strategy, and I can't believe I'm having to say this AGAIN.

Language is convention. You either know the definition of a word, or you don't. If your understanding of the meaning of a word differs from that of the dictionary and learned scholars, then who should adjust? Otherwise, any jumble of phonemes would be just as good as any other.

[Trolldor]

Language is convention. You either know the definition of a word, or you don't. If your understanding of the meaning of a word differs from that of the dictionary and learned scholars, then who should adjust? Otherwise, any jumble of phonemes would be just as good as any other.

Language is context. Convention gives you an idea, the use gives you the definition. I think Andrew is referring to metaphysics in the 'common' context of being 'the imaginary on par with the physical' rather than 'when the physical does not apply'.

[FBM]

Language is convention. You either know the definition of a word, or you don't. If your understanding of the meaning of a word differs from that of the dictionary and learned scholars, then who should adjust? Otherwise, any jumble of phonemes would be just as good as any other.

Language is context. Convention gives you an idea, the use gives you the definition. I think Andrew is referring to metaphysics in the 'common' context of being 'the imaginary on par with the physical' rather than 'when the physical does not apply'.

That's the opposite of what I teach my students, and what I learned in university. Language is the conventional use of phonemes as encoding of meaning. Context provides clues as to the intended use of any particular set of phonemes (a word) at a given time. 'plane' can mean a large metal, flying object of transportation or a 2-dimensional representation. Neither is more correct than the other, and both are pronounced and written the same. The phonetics are identical. The particular situation is incidental to this.

This thread is clearly a philosophical context. The OP was not couched in the vernacular; it was an invitation to discuss a philosophical topic in a philosophical manner, so street usage of specific philosophical terminology is out of context.

[Trolldor]

'plane' can mean a large metal, flying object of transportation or a 2-dimensional representation. Neither is more correct than the other, and both are pronounced and written the same. The phonetics are identical. The particular situation is incidental to this.

In this example given, whether it is an aircraft or a 2-dimensional representation is dependant upon the context in which the word is used. The 'conventions' only give you a list of possibilities. The determiner is where and how the word is used. Calling someone 'dick' might seem offensive from the outside until you discover it's what his parents named him, which change the context.

[FBM]

'plane' can mean a large metal, flying object of transportation or a 2-dimensional representation. Neither is more correct than the other, and both are pronounced and written the same. The phonetics are identical. The particular situation is incidental to this.

In this example given, whether it is an aircraft or a 2-dimensional representation is dependant upon the context in which the word is used. The 'conventions' only give you a list of possibilities. The determiner is where and how the word is used. Calling someone 'dick' might seem offensive from the outside until you discover it's what his parents named him, which change the context.

But the use of those phonemes is a long-term convention that precedes the particular instances in which they are used, are they not? Dick could also be used to refer to a private detective in the '50s or even a spotted dick. I see where you're coming from, but my perspective an an English teacher forces me to view the topic from a different angle. Specifically, how languages and meanings evolve over time and how they depend upon convention. I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong, just looking at it from a different angle. But in the context of this thread, a sloppy vernacular use of the word 'metaphysics' is out of context, is it not?

[Drewish]

Please, lets avoid the language debates! I have restated my claim substituting other words in for metaphysics to avoid any confusion. While I find it humorous that MBF is defending objective language while attacking objective morality, that is not the topic of this discussion. I think gooseboy has presented some good ideas (similar to where I was headed to eventually anyways.) Let's discuss that if we can.

[FBM]

Please, lets avoid the language debates! I have restated my claim substituting other words in for metaphysics to avoid any confusion. While I find it humorous that MBF is defending objective language while attacking objective morality, that is not the topic of this discussion. I think gooseboy has presented some good ideas (similar to where I was headed to eventually anyways.) Let's discuss that if we can.

I'm not trying to be offensive, and I'm not engating in emotion/ego-fueled rhetoric. Definition is by consensus, and it changes over time. I'm simply stating that your perception/definition of 'metaphysics', judging from your frequent confusing and contradictory uses of the term, doesn't jibe with the definition currently used by scholars or the dictionary. Definitions aren't objective, they're collectively agreed-upon conventions. One who rejects the conventional definitions is bound with the task of defending, justifying his/her re-definition. This would require citing references, empirical data, etc. If 99.99...% of the people use 'metaphysics' to means something different from the way you use it, it's up to you to justify the change in conventional definition. It's not an objective definition; it's just a matter of pragmatics. Conventions facilitate effective communication. Without them, communication is impossible.

It's really very simple: explain and defend your definition of 'metaphysics', as it doesn't concur with that used by philosophers and scientists alike. What's so difficult about that?

Edit: You never answered my earlier question about whether or not moral culpability is tied to self-awareness.

[starr]

No probs about adding your thoughts. I don't know if what I said is like Social Darwinism - I was merely saying that morals must be useful to the individual (not to society) for them to survive. Is this incorrect?

It depends what you mean by survive. I don't think I was clear enough with my earlier post. I don't think that moral values or rules are genetically transferred. I don't think there is a genetic component to any particular moral value or rule.

It is possible that a part of the brain has evolved to facilitate the development of morals. This genetic/physical component however would not include any specific moral values or rules. It would merely be a framework within which moral values and rules could develop/imprint/transfer etc.

Richard Dawkins talks about the transfer of moral or cultural information in terms of his theory of memetics. I don't know a lot about memetics, but I do know it's considered controversial. It certainly does not have the same standing in the scientific community as the theory of evolution. Memetics is an analogous theory that Dawkins has come up with to explain the transfer of cultural and societal information including morals. He does not propose that this information is transferred genetically.

It is likely that the capacity for morality evolved in humans, just like the capacity for advanced reasoning evolved.

Agreed - and in order to do so they would have to be useful to the individual.

I don't doubt that many morals are taught. But the trolley problem is interesting.

....

It appears to Mikhail that some moral structure (or grammar as he calls it) is ingrained in people regardless of their culture. This, I have little doubt, must have evolved because it is useful to the individual (I think that saying it may have come along as a free ride is a bit of a cop out). Would this not imply that this moral structure/grammar objectively better than other moral structures/grammars that didn't survive evolution?

As I explained above, I don't think I was clear enough in my earlier post, sorry about that. I wasn't actually trying to argue that morality came along as a free ride in an evolutionary sense. I don't even think that moral values or rules evolve because I don't think that any moral values or rules are encoded in our genetic make-up. I hope that makes it clearer.

The 'free ride' comment was to illustrate that it is incorrect to conclude that a particular gene must be useful to the individual based on the fact it has 'survived'.

In terms of Mikhail's research, I can't seem to find his article freely available online. I found an article critiquing Mikhail's theory of moral grammar http://isik.zrc-sazu.si/doc2009/kpms/cr ... _07-10.pdf. The critique concluded that they did not think there was an underlying grammar to morals but they did not make any conclusions about whether or not there may be a biological component to morality. As with most 'cutting edge' science there are different camps saying different things and both need more evidence to support their claims.

I suppose in essence it comes down to what you mean by some morals are subjective but some may be objective. Are you talking about specific moral values or about a general propensity for people to develop/absorb a moral code? If the latter then I would agree it is quite likely that it could be true. However, I thought that when we talked about objective morality in a philosophical context it was more in terms of specific moral values.

It's also 1.02am and I'm tired so I hope this made at least a littlebitofsense.

[Drewish]

One last try for FMB,

Metaphysics is like the God of the gaps. It's the assumptions people make to found their philosophies on, and the areas being left to them to make such assumptions is continuously shrinking. I am saying that we know enough about how the universe works that we can build philosophy on that just fine, and for those things that we cannot answer yet because they require knowledge of the universe that we do not yet have, that we should be honest enough to admit that we don't know yet, rather than fill in the gap with metaphysics. There, I managed to explain what I was getting at while still using your definition of metaphysics, I will not discuss metaphysics any longer here, and if you disagree about my assertion that we should not rely on metaphysics in the absence of knowledge, then I have clearly not convinced you and you can confidently tell yourself that I am unable to prove objective morality to you.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

One last try for FMB,

Metaphysics is like the God of the gaps. It's the assumptions people make to found their philosophies on, and the areas being left to them to make such assumptions is continuously shrinking. I am saying that we know enough about how the universe works that we can build philosophy on that just fine, and for those things that we cannot answer yet because they require knowledge of the universe that we do not yet have, that we should be honest enough to admit that we don't know yet, rather than fill in the gap with metaphysics. There, I managed to explain what I was getting at while still using your definition of metaphysics, I will not discuss metaphysics any longer here, and if you disagree about my assertion that we should not rely on metaphysics in the absence of knowledge, then I have clearly not convinced you and you can confidently tell yourself that I am unable to prove objective morality to you.

Andrew. Let us assume, for sake of argument, that we are to approach the subject of morality without employing metaphysics. Please present such an argument.

[Drewish]

Richard Dawkins talks about the transfer of moral or cultural information in terms of his theory of memetics. I don't know a lot about memetics, but I do know it's considered controversial. It certainly does not have the same standing in the scientific community as the theory of evolution. Memetics is an analogous theory that Dawkins has come up with to explain the transfer of cultural and societal information including morals. He does not propose that this information is transferred genetically.

The idea of memetics and morality survivability is exactly the means by which I'm hoping to show objective moral standards to exist. Dawkins has repeatedly referred to religion as a virus, but I think this may be a bit off. If we were to view a code of morality to be a bacteria that might be better. Morality (like memes) could be benign, symbiotic, parasitic or some combination there of. Morality can spread by various means. If a morality spreads by symbiotically aiding it's 'host' it is in fact very different from a morality (morality being a specific type of meme, or and aspect of culture) that does so at the expense of its host.

[FBM]

One last try for FMB,

Metaphysics is like the God of the gaps. It's the assumptions people make to found their philosophies on, and the areas being left to them to make such assumptions is continuously shrinking. I am saying that we know enough about how the universe works that we can build philosophy on that just fine, and for those things that we cannot answer yet because they require knowledge of the universe that we do not yet have, that we should be honest enough to admit that we don't know yet, rather than fill in the gap with metaphysics. There, I managed to explain what I was getting at while still using your definition of metaphysics, I will not discuss metaphysics any longer here, and if you disagree about my assertion that we should not rely on metaphysics in the absence of knowledge, then I have clearly not convinced you and you can confidently tell yourself that I am unable to prove objective morality to you.

Logic, the bread-and-butter of science, is metaphysics. It is a derivitave of the empirical data collected by the sciences, and it is based upon those data. You haven't done anything yet but post and defend your opinion, even when exposed to statements by relevant scholars that contradict you. If you want someone to believe you over the relevant experts' positions, it's incumbent upon you to provide sufficient or overwhelming support for your position. You haven't even cited sources or empirical data. Why should we believe you over the scientists and philosophers whom you conradict? Please demonstrate your superior scholarship vis a vis those of the philosophers and scientists I have cited.

But you won't. You don't seem to be one to resort to such philistine tactics as citing sources and relevant authorities on the matter at hand.

Further reading, even though I know you won't read it: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/L&M.htm

[Trolldor]

How about this: Introduce ANY evidence for ANY of the points you've made throughout the thread.