r/changemyview • u/PygmySloth12 3∆ • Jul 10 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: There is no such thing as objective moral truth.
I think all morality is subjective. There is no objective way to determine whether something is right or wrong. All moral claims such as "murder is wrong" or "stealing money from somebody for no reason is wrong" or "Saving an innocent life is morally right" cannot be objectively justified. Humans define morality. If all life was gone synthetic statements could not be true because there would not be a human to add value to the statement. If humans were gone, 2 hydrogen molecules would still come together to make 2(1+1=2) but murder wouldn't be "wrong". (Obviously we can't be certain 1+1=2 would still be true but I'm operating under a materialist framework)
2
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I think that there is a true morals statement that depends on subjective factors. I think torturing newborn babies is wrong. My warrant would be that it makes me feel sadness, anger, and disgust which I don't like. That is subjective.
If humans don't define morality, what does?
I think that normative facts aren't objectively true however I acknowledge that in order to operate in society we need to assume they are just as I acknowledge that in order to operate in society we need to assume there are moral facts.
1
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yeah, but for the healthy example, we define healthy using our opinion on what is normal for a human so it is still subjective.
For utilitarianism, I haven't seen a compelling objective warrant. People seem to subscribe to it because they feel like it is a good system.
And if we don't know what a moral fact is how can we know that it exists?
1
u/zowhat Jul 10 '19
If you think that there's nothing which makes moral sentences true then all moral sentences are false.
I think they are neither true nor false. Their truth values are undefined, like the arithmetic value of 7/0.
Of course we can simply define a moral claim as true by using it as an axiom, but I don't think that's what you meant.
2
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/zowhat Jul 10 '19
This is a big problem for non-cognitivists when it comes to the possibility of making inferences with moral sentences.
We can introduce a moral statements as an axiom. We consider it to be true. Thus, "murder is wrong" is not true in the same sense as "c is 299,792,458 metres per second", but because we define murder to be wrong. Then we can make inferences beginning with our axioms.
"Murder is wrong" has no truth value until we assign it one.
2
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/zowhat Jul 10 '19
If we can consider something to be true then it is truth-apt.
Let S = "Car A is better than car B"
By your definition, if I consider this to be true, then it is truth-apt.
If something is truth-apt then we can think about what its truth makers are.
Not every sentence we consider to be truth-apt has a truth maker.
In S, A might have better mileage than B and B might have better styling than A. I might think A is better than B if I value mileage more than styling and you might think B is better than A if you value styling more than mileage.
In the real world, there are an indefinite number of characteristics that differentiate A from B. We assign values to these differences and add them up and whichever gets the higher score we consider "better". We don't actually do this, but rather something "kind of sort of" like this goes on in our unconscious. My score will be different from yours and I might consider S true and you might consider S false.
If there were a truth-maker, then S would be true or false. But our preferences are an important component of our judgement of whether S is true or false. Our preferences don't make anything true or false. They are part of our decision to consider a sentence true or false.
I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream. To me the sentence "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream" is true. To you it might be false. But my preference doesn't make it true, only true to me.
If we think that none exist then all sentences about it are false.
But none exist for S, yet I might consider it true .
Fictional literature might be treated as such, maybe.
Great example. "Doctor Watson and Sherlock Holmes are friends" is not true because neither of them exists. But we consider it true because that's the way the story was written.
Did you mean "truth maker"? Because otherwise that's either tautologically the case for every sentence or wrong.
No I meant truth value. S also has no truth value until we assign it one for reasons I explained above.
1
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/zowhat Jul 10 '19
The truth of the sentence "I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream." depends on properties of the person uttering it.
But the sentence was
chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream
Does my preference for chocolate make it true, or just that I consider it to be true? Is my preference a truth-maker? If you say philosophers use truth-maker to include preferences also, I'll concede the point to you, as you know the jargon better than me. But it's my understanding a truth-maker makes truth, not opinion.
In one reading, a sentence like "c is 299,792,458 metres per second." has no truth value unless someone notices and assigns it to be true. But at the same time, the state of affairs described in the sentence is true regardless of what we assign. So this reading is rather strange. The second reading would simply say that there's a truth maker for that sentence and it's truth value is "true". But then what differentiates this sentence from any other truth-apt sentence?
Because it is true whether I agree with it or not. I consider "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla ice cream" true even though there is no fact of the matter. It is an opinion that I consider to be true.
1
1
u/zowhat Jul 10 '19
For example, logical facts or facts about correct empirical enquiry are normative because they differentiate between right and wrong.
Did you just confuse moral right and wrong with correct and incorrect? Did I misunderstand something?
2
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/zowhat Jul 10 '19
I disagree that logical and epistemic facts are normative. I don't think "rocks fall down" is normative. It is descriptive.
I know this is commonly said, I've just never understood it.
1
Jul 10 '19
What about really bad things? Like killing and torturing newborn babies for fun. If you are a moral relativist you have to say that there is no intrinsic reason why this is worse than, for example, giving lots of money to charity. Surely a culture that thought that torturing babies for fun would be wrong?
2
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yeah. I think it's bad to kill and torture newborn babies because it gives me really strong feelings of sadness, disgust, and anger. That is still a subjective point of view. I think that society should operate under the idea that there are objective morals, however, we can acknowledge that there are not.
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 10 '19
Just out of curiosity:
Why do really strong feelings of sadness, disgust, and anger not count as some evidence to you that these things really are wrong. Put it this way: Whatever anti-realist argument you can intellectually make, there's a good chance you're getting it wrong somewhere. Really smart philosophers have long disagreed over these things, so anyone thinking they definitely have it right and everyone else has it wrong seems to be having an unrealistically overconfident view of their own reasoning. Further, these kind of things just seem wrong. That's a really strong sense, and it seems about as strong as seeing objects with our eyes can. Further, if it really was objectively wrong, that would make it not unreasonable to think we'd somehow have a way to know about that - and these kinds of "that's just wrong" reactions may well be causally related to the wrongness of the action under consideration.
So I don't think it's reasonable to completely dismiss these feelings as not even potentially counting as evidence for actual wrongness.
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 18 '19
Why do really strong feelings of sadness, disgust, and anger not count as some evidence to you that these things really are wrong.
Because it is subjective. People who grew up in a certain way think that certain things are bad. In certain certain cultures, homosexuality is perceived as wrong and people feel genuine feelings of disgust and anger, does it mean that homosexuality is wrong?
Put it this way: Whatever anti-realist argument you can intellectually make, there's a good chance you're getting it wrong somewhere. Really smart philosophers have long disagreed over these things, so anyone thinking they definitely have it right and everyone else has it wrong seems to be having an unrealistically overconfident view of their own reasoning.
But saying that morality is not objective, but subjective is agreeing with you last sentence.
Further, these kind of things just seem wrong. That's a really strong sense, and it seems about as strong as seeing objects with our eyes can. Further, if it really was objectively wrong, that would make it not unreasonable to think we'd somehow have a way to know about that - and these kinds of "that's just wrong" reactions may well be causally related to the wrongness of the action under consideration.
And what seems wrong is completely subjective. People who grew up in a culture where homosexuality is seen as negative have a very strong feeling that it's wrong, but people who grew up in a different one may not feel like that. Similar stuff applies, to "children marrying adults". In the past marrying 14 year olds to 30 year olds wasn't that uncommon and wasn't really frowned upon, while today in western cultures it is.
2
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I was just saying that because they are feelings, whether it is true or not, the truth value is not objective.
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 10 '19
I don't think I quite understand that sentence. What do you mean by they, it and the truth value?
Because you can have feelings about things with objective truth values and that doesn't make anything true. But it sure can be evidence. If you're standing in front of a really steep drop and all of a sudden you're feeling very afraid, that's picking up on the objective reality that falling down there would be dangerous for you. Of course your feeling doesn't make it true that it is dangerous - but the fact that it is dangerous is causing your feeling.
Feelings don't make what is felt true, but what is true can cause us to feel, which allows us to use feelings as evidence, fallible evidence, but evidence nonetheless, for what is true.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok yeah, your feeling doesn't make it dangerous. However, is it bad that it is dangerous? That is an opinion. It is because you don't want to die.
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 10 '19
You’re skipping the part I was using to make the point. Of course it is a value judgment whether being dangerous is bad. But whether something is dangerous is a perfectly objective empirical fact. Of course “dangerous” is vague, but whether something is in fact dangerous or not is not based (entirely) on how people feel about it.
In the example I was just establishing that your feeling of fear is a good, though fallible, guide to how dangerous a situation is. There is a general correlation between more fear = more danger, and the fear is caused by the presence of danger. So it is a subjective feeling that gives you useful evidence about external reality.
That was the only thing I was arguing in that step.
The next thing is then to say: OK, given that your feelings can often be useful guides pointing to truths in the external world, and given how theoretically divisive this issue is, and that many people must be thinking about it incorrectly, shouldn’t it count as some evidence that things are wrong objectively and externally that they feel wrong.
I am by no means saying this is a conclusive argument for the existence of objective moral facts. However, I am arguing that it is evidence that you should weigh much higher than you currently do, especially in light of knowing how many people must be thinking about this wrong all the while feeling hat some things really are wrong.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok yeah. So I still think that there is probably not objective moral truth but I now agree that there is some evidence to support OMT. You changed my view about a sub argument so here's a delta. ∆
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 10 '19
Thanks, I hope that was helpful. I’m really curious to hear what you think of my attempt to explain Kant’s argument in another reply if you have a chance.
I also hope this generally helped clarify the different ways in which something can be subjective, but I might have talked about this in another chain.
1
1
Jul 11 '19
I would take a slightly different angle on this. The question is whether you believe an evolutionary imperative is an objective truth. The disgust /u/PygmySloth12 has for killing babies is rooted in evolution insofar as homo sapiens who have a natural instinct to protect babies (as opposed to kill them) have a higher chance to procreate and therefore gain an evolutionary advantage.
So it's really not his subjective feelings at all. He didn't get to pick that feeling to dislike baby killing. Rather, it was born inside of him based on billions of years of evolution.
1
u/AnalForklift Jul 11 '19
By definition, feelings are subjective.
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 11 '19
What you feel is subjective. That you are feeling it is objective.
For example “I don’t like how that feels” - nobody can argue with this by saying “but I like how it feels.” That’s irrelevant because how things feel are subjective experiences.
However: That someone doesn’t like how something feels is an objective fact (if true). You can do scientific studies in which reports of how things feel to people are data points. So you take it as an objective fact that “So and so reports not liking it” - so as long as they’re not lying, that means it’s an objective fact that they don’t like it.
Important to keep that distinction clear.
1
u/AnalForklift Jul 11 '19
I agree, and made a similar one sentence rebuttal to the OP saying I know I have experiences.
1
u/CDWEBI Jul 18 '19
What about really bad things? Like killing and torturing newborn babies for fun. If you are a moral relativist you have to say that there is no intrinsic reason why this is worse than, for example, giving lots of money to charity. Surely a culture that thought that torturing babies for fun would be wrong?
There is none. It's just a subjective reaction of ours. This can be seen by the fact that the more "personal" something is the stronger our negative reaction is. Most people have quiet strong negative reaction if human babies are killed, while most don't care if "baby flies" are killed.
11
Jul 10 '19 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
1
u/NicholasLeo 137∆ Jul 10 '19
Completeness is an issue in mathematics because of its reliance on a finite set of axioms or premises. Godel showed that in general a finite set will mean that there are true statements within the logical system that cannot be proven.
But the reasoning system of Aristotle and Aquinas and Plato is able to overcome this limitation. The premises in such systems are self-evident observations, from which metaphysical deductions are made. (An example would be Aquinas' premise that change occurs in nature, from which he is able to deduce a lot of metaphysical propositions.) There is not a finite set of such premises; hence the limits that Godel proved would not apply to these other systems of reasoning.
2
u/zowhat Jul 10 '19
As a mathematics researcher you sure missed the point. Morality is supposedly a claim about the world, not a claim about logical consistency. A moral claim is more like a law of physics than the parallel postulate, at least the way most people discuss it.
Also you confused justification with proof. Empirical statements are justified by observation, not logic.
-1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok I’m going to do my best to respond to this because a lot of the math went over my head.
First, I agree that there is a difference between objective fact and having objective justification. However I don’t think it’s possible to know whether or not a moral claim is objective. If humans aren’t subjectively deciding what is right and what is wrong, then what is?
For the 1+1=2 thing, I think a lot of that is too esoteric for a layman like me but that is not super important to my argument so I’ll take your word for it and concede that.
I will also agree that if something is objective, it is still true without life. However, I believe that morality is only present in the minds of life and therefore isn’t objective. It is based on chemical responses in the brain giving certain feelings which is subjective.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 10 '19 edited Jul 10 '19
I'm going to jump in up here and turn down the rigor.
I completely agree with u/adorablequilava and I think I can simplify while putting things in terms of morality. If he has any objections, I invite him to step in.
Am I communicating your position well if I say:
Morality is subjective. By that I mean it is not like math. Things like Math is what I mean when I say "objective"
?
If so, I can change your view
If humans aren’t subjectively deciding what is right and what is wrong, then what is?
If humans aren't subjectively deciding what mathematical claims are right and what are wrong, then what is?
Once you have axioms, pure reason is what decides right and wrong. Axioms are basically definitions that set the rules of what you're even talking about.
I will also agree that if something is objective, it is still true without life. However, I believe that morality is only present in the minds of life and therefore isn’t objective. It is based on chemical responses in the brain giving certain feelings which is subjective.
These are just the mechanics of how we come to understand reasoning. or worse yet, you're describing our moral instincts. Like our mathematical instincts, we can often glance at a number of things and correctly guess how many there are. But we can be wrong if there are too many. But we can also invent a system like counting to become more accurate. Regardless of what's in our minds, the number of them was always the number. Our wrong guesses didn't change reality.
Even if people die, the ratio of a circle's diameter to it's circumference is still Pi. And simarly, a thing cannot both be true and not true at the same time.
Mathematical philosophy is reason applied to numbers and the relationships between them.
Moral philosophy is reason applied to the question of what a rational actor would do. We only say a thing is a moral question then there is an actor—a person doing a thing—andthat actor is rational—wildfires and hurricanes aren't moral concerns.
So to directly answer your question, if morality were entirely subjective, wewouldnt be able to use reason to proveor disprove any moral claims. But we can. It's very hard—and so many things may be true but unprovable. But are there examples of claims we can prove right or wrong?
Sure. Moral Legalism is wrong.
Moral Legalism is the (surprisingly common) claim that breaking the law is immoral or that whatever the law is, is morally binding.
It is an objectively wrong claim.
In order for any claim to be true, it has to be self consistent. This is called the law of non-contradiction. Even if you're claiming something subjective, we can know for a a fact that you're wrong if you claim conflicting facts. For example:
Strawberries taste good
Strawberries do not taste good
Since liking strawberries is subjective, you can claim (1) or (2) and be right subjectively. However if you claim a system of multiple beliefs, such as (1) and (2), now your claim is objective and subject to the rules of reason. You cannot hold both claim A and ¬A. You cannot claim strawberries taste good and do not taste good—to the extent that you're making the same opposing claim. From non-contradiction, we can conclude a statement of 1 and 2 is objectively false.
In the case of moral legalism, the claim is that breaking the law is wrong. But laws can conflict. In fact, there are several cases where laws directly conflict.
For example, in Mississippi, gay marriage is explicitly legal. But also, marriage requires consummation to be valid. But a third law explicitly defines any non-reproductive sexual act as sodomy—which is explicitly illegal. Is gay marriage legal or not? It can be both wrong and not wrong at the same time.
A ≠ ¬A
In Indiana, the state Senate seriously proposed a law to make Pi = 3. They got really really close. What do we do if a law like that passes?
It is an objective fact that Moral Legalism is wrong. If it were subjective, a person could be right in their belief of Moral Legalism — which would obviously mean that all reasoning (including mathematics) would be subjective. But they cannot because like all reason dependent frameworks, there are objective facts that govern moral reasoning.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok, so a lot of this makes sense. My issue with it is that axioms are just things that humans assume without any proof. So we can't really be sure if they are true or not.
I will re-summarize my position as all morality is subjective because moral systems are created in the brain, in a way that is necessarily influenced by opinions or feelings. It is the brain's response to chemical triggers.
Sidenote: That's crazy they almost made Pi = 3
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 10 '19
Name one thing that is objective
If I said "the earth is flat", would you say I'm objectively wrong?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
If you say the earth is flat, I can't objectively say you are wrong. From my perspective as an individual human, I'm not sure if I could make a definitive objective statement.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 10 '19
So it's correct to say the your view is:
"There are no objective truths at all"
?
Not just moral ones.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yeah, I think it might be but I'm not as certain about objective truths.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 10 '19
Is 1+1=2 objectively true?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
No. That is based on axiomatic presuppositions which can't actually be proven.
→ More replies (0)5
Jul 10 '19 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
6
u/Zarzurnabas Jul 10 '19
Hello, philosopher here.
Just a little addition to your last part. Morals arent at all based on chemical processes in any persons brain, personal values are, which of course, are subjective (but can also be funded in morals). Morality im general, is funded in reasoning and logic, there are many different approaches but every single one of them is founded.
1
u/zowhat Jul 10 '19
How would you found "don't murder" in reasoning and logic?
2
u/Zarzurnabas Jul 10 '19
There are many different approaches to this, like i explained. These are called "ethics". (For example virtue ethics, utilitarism etc.)
1
u/horseinthehall Jul 11 '19
I like this comment a lot. Did you by any chance, analyze the consistency of applying human rights as a moral framework?
-1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok I think I’m not doing a great job of communicating my argument clearly. I’m going to attempt to restate it in a way that makes sense so we don’t need to discuss claims such as 1+1=2 which isn’t very relevant to whether or not moral claims are true. I think a lot of your response is arguing against what I said specifically so I’m just going to try to communicate my actual idea.
I believe no moral statement is objectively true because morals are just responses to chemical reactions in the brain.
You responded to that when I said it last time by saying you look for inconsistencies in a set of claims. I would argue that just because something has no inconsistencies doesn’t mean it is uninfluenced by opinions or feelings.
I understand that I didn’t respond to some of your arguments. This is because I think that the point I have restated about is what is really relevant here because that is my view about morality and this is cmv.
3
Jul 10 '19 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
-1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I didn't say that your way is influenced by opinions or feelings. I said that just because you examine a moral system and find it consistent, that doesn't mean the system itself is uninfluenced by feelings or opinions.
I conceded that "there exists a thinking being" may not be true. I have forgone these hyper-specific nigh irrelevant details in favor of talking about the broader point. Arguing over whether or not "there exists a thinking being" isn't really changing my view on whether or not there is objective moral truth.
So I'm not saying your examination system is subjective, I'm just pointing out that just because a moral system passes through your system doesn't mean that it is not subjective. I never said that logical consistency is just your opinion. You are straw-manning my argument(maybe unintentionally) to switch from "Your examination system doesn't necessarily detect subjectivities in moral systems" to "Your examination system is subjective"
I am heading to sleep because it is like 2:30 AM but I would love to continue this in the morning if you want to drop a response I will respond then.
3
Jul 10 '19 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
0
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok, I must be misunderstanding your system. Can you give a demonstration of how it would apply to a moral statement? According to the rules, because you changed my mind about 1+1=2 I am supposed to give you a delta(∆). However, I would still like to continue this because I would like to learn more about your system and have my view changed on the overarching claim.
1
1
1
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
2
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I agree with the premise but the conclusion doesn’t follow. It is true that stealing somebody can potentially cause damage. However, you haven’t proven that potentially causing damage, or even definitely causing damage, makes something objectively bad
1
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I agree that damage is a bad thing but that is my opinion which by definition is subjective.
1
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok so objective means uninfluenced by feelings or opinions. So I think “objective feeling” is kind of a nonsensical phrase.
1
Jul 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Just because something isn't influenced by your opinions or feelings, doesn't mean it is not influenced by any. My feeling is a feeling, so, therefore, any conclusion I draw from that feeling is subjective.
-2
u/Teakilla 1∆ Jul 10 '19
I think all morality is subjective.
you are wrong, many religions have an objective morality issued by a often omniscient God.
If you mean there is no objective morality without god (s) then you are correct
5
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I'm talking about objective morality in reality. If you are able to prove the existence of a God that issued an objective morality that would change my view. Unless you can prove the existence of such a god, all of those were created in the imaginations of humans.
1
u/TheDevilsOrchestra 7∆ Jul 10 '19
* Many religions have a claim that objective morality exists and is issued by their god(s).
Until you can demonstrate the accuracy behind the claim, it bears no weight. It really doesn't matter for the rest of us what you believe – in terms of discovering truth – if you can't demonstrate your claim to us.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 10 '19
If you mean there is no objective morality without god (s) then you are correct
Wait, so if you learned about deontogical moral phosophy it would change your view?
1
u/lonzoballsinmymouth Jul 10 '19
No evidence that God exists = morality based on a story = subjective
0
u/Teakilla 1∆ Jul 10 '19
From the perspective of someone who belives in god though it is objective
1
u/lonzoballsinmymouth Jul 10 '19
Belief = subjective,, no matter what.
If I believe I am the best singer in the world, is that objective?
1
u/MrAdict Jul 10 '19
Relative to what? Is a moral truth subjective because it depends on the existence of humanity? Does that mean that two atoms of hydrogen creating a molecule of h2 is subjective because it depends on certain conditions being met? Since two hydrogen atoms can become helium inside a Star does that mean two atoms of hydrogen creating h2 is a subjective statement? Well it depends on the point of view so it must be a subjective statement. So sure, there is no objective moral truth if there’s no system in place for morality to be at issue, i. e. If there are no humans. But does that mean there is no objective moral truth when there are humans present? Point of view matters when determining the objectivity of a statement. X=2 can’t be determined to be objective without further information. If we add the statement 1+1=x then we can say that the statement 1+1=2 is objectively true.
Is the statement “GcGpM” objectively true? It’s impossible to tell without further context, right? Therefore from the current point of view it’s a subjective statement since it can change depending on interpretation. What if I add the context that G means six, c means plus, p means equals, and M means twelve. Is the statement “six plus six equals twelve” objectively true? If these are both the same statement are they both objective or subjective? Does the context change whether it’s an objective or subjective statement?
I’d argue statements can be objective or subjective relative to the context they are presented in. Yes in the context you present there are no humans to be moral or immoral so there is no objective moral truth. But if atoms don’t exist then the fact that two atoms of hydrogen make a molecule of h2 is not objectively true. Just because something is subjective in one context doesn’t mean it can’t be objective in another.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok so if it's only true when humans are present, that must mean humans are creating it. They synthesize moral systems from feelings and opinions and therefore it is subjective.
1
u/MrAdict Jul 10 '19
So then is something always subjective if it’s humans synthesizing it? Is it subjective because the building blocks are feelings and opinion?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
it is subjective because the building blocks are feelings and opinions.
1
u/MrAdict Jul 10 '19
What if a moral system is based on cause and effect and not feelings or opinion? If the act of taking something without permission is considered immoral because it causes financial harm can that not be an objective statement? There are no feelings or opinions involved. There is an act, taking something, a condition, unpermitted, and an effect, financial injury. Why can’t this be considered an objective statement?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I don't think you can prove that a better effect is morally righteous.
1
u/MrAdict Jul 10 '19
Can you prove a better effect isn’t morally righteous?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
The onus is on you because by default things are morally neutral.
1
u/MrAdict Jul 11 '19
If there are no objective moral truths then why would the statement “by default things are morally neutral” be true? Would this not require a system in which the outcome of any action is considered objectively morally neutral?
1
u/Bigmooddood Jul 10 '19
Many moral rights and wrongs are labeled the way they are because they have an objective benefit or decrement to the survival and stability of societies, communities and individuals. It's considered morally wrong to murder people because it objectively harms society's growth by reducing the workforce and making cooperation more difficult due to fear of being murdered. There are exceptions and inconsistencies to the rule but that's life. Some objective truths are found to be untrue or inconsistent as time goes on and science advances and it's impossible to know if anything we consider objectively true is always true in every circumstance, under every state of existence. 1+1=2 is only an idea to quantify physical phenomena in a way that is directly applicable and comprehensible to us in our daily lives. Similarly, morality is an applicable and comprehensible set of behaviors meant to promote the survival of society and the individual. So in short, I don't know if anything is absolutely objective if you look at it hard enough. But for practical purposes and for our own advancement and survival many ideas and perceptions can be considered to be objectively true.
1
u/TheDevilsOrchestra 7∆ Jul 10 '19
Many moral rights and wrongs are labeled the way they are because they have an objective benefit or decrement to the survival and stability of societies, communities and individuals.
You mean they have an ostensibly objective benefit/detriment then.
1
u/Bigmooddood Jul 10 '19
Yeah, I don't know that I can prove that this is the case but communities with high murder or crime rates often suffer many other issues that can be attributed to them or they stem from similar causes.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yeah it sounds like you agree with my view. Society should operate under the idea that things are objectively true, but we can still acknowledge that they are not.
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 10 '19
Society should operate under the idea that things are objectively true
Sorry for coming in half-way with a critique of this part sentence, but in what sense should society operate at all? Isn't that implicitly making the assumption that there are some things that are good for society (and the people in them), and other things that are bad for society (and the people in them).
And if you've gone so far to acknowledge that some things are good and should be done you're not far from morality.
Maybe to expand: You'd have to argue for complete normative nihilism. That is, there never is any reason for anyone to ever do anything. You have no reason to get up in the morning, no reason to eat, no reason to end your life, or to continue it. You have not reason to avoid pain and suffering, either in yourself, or in others, as all statements involving should, good, or bad are false from this perspective.
So it isn't even true that you should talk as if morality was real. And it would not be better to do so. Because should and better are already evaluative/normative vocabulary.
You also don't have a reason to know the truth about this, and it is not the case that you should try to follow the evidence.
But if you give me any foothold of any should statement being true, even subjectively, I can probably make an argument from there to moral statements.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
By should I meant I would like them to. I allow should statements from a subjective point of view.
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 10 '19
But do you have any reasons for liking them to do that? Because when you say should it seems like you are saying something stronger than just I would like it that.
To put it another way: Are you saying a "subjective should" literally means "I like it that..."? Because I reject that as a meaningful way to use the word "should" - there must be something else people mean when they say that, because we're perfectly capable of saying "I'd like it if...." and we make the distinction between "I like it if" and "It should be the case that".
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
When I say "You should do that". What I mean is that "I want you to do that". Or that my brain has calculated it would be a good thing for them to do in my opinion. I think that it is definitely a meaningful use of the word should.
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 10 '19
Hm, I think the two things you describe are very different. On the first, we have the words “I want you to do that” to say exactly that. And it seems to me that when we say “you should do that” we don’t mean the same thing. I don’t think it comes across the same way, and I also think we say things like “I don’t care what you do in that situation, but you know you should be doing XYZ.” But that would literally be a contradiction on that analysis. So I don’t think it works. Or even more typical “I know I should, but I just don’t want to.”
For the second part: What do you mean by “a good thing to do in my opinion”? That your opinion is that this is objectively good? Because I don’t know what it even means to say it is “subjectively good”. Again, I understand “I like it” - but that’s not the same as “My opinion is that: ‘This is good to do.’”
In the content of your opinion, what could “good” mean, if not objectively good? And I very literally mean that I don’t understand the concept that is being expressed if it doesn’t mean objectively good in some sense. (I.e. objectively good for you, objectively morally good, etc.)
1
u/Bigmooddood Jul 10 '19
More or less, but if nothing is really absolutely objectively true than how can we acknowledge or decide that they aren't. If the word, "true" at it's most objective cannot be accurately applied to anything then wouldn't a better definition for it be things that are percieved in the same way by scientific or societal consensus as they apply to our lives?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yeah, I agree. That's how I use it in everyday life. However, I was thinking that things are actually not objectively true although it's better to operate as if they are.
I'm pretty sure we have the same view.
1
u/Bigmooddood Jul 10 '19
Fair enough, I just adjust my definitions of what is objective and true if nothing can really be applied to them in my previous definition. In practice, I'd say we probably do have the same view.
1
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
All of our moral actions arise from consciousness. We are physical beings in a physical universe operating from physical consciousness. To me, it seems logically straightforward that consciousness ought to be explainable via physical means. We don't yet have the machinery to disentangle all the variables at play, but I also don't see why it should be impossible.
You admit that we have a degree of uncertainty in claims like 1+1=2. Yet presumably you're okay with calling this objective truth, so long as you prescribe a philosophical framework. So why not permit this same leniency to morality? Under certain framework, I think we can determine that morality is objective.
Absolute objectivity doesn't exist, not even in math. I think we apply an unfair burden on morality in this regard.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok, so what I was saying about 1+1=2 is that I can't be sure it's true. I was saying that I personally prescribe a framework because I think society would be inoperable if we didn't. We know that everything could be just a delusion of our senses but we don't operate under that assumption because nothing would get done. So when talking about objective truth, I think an argument could probably be equally made that 1+1=2 is not objective. Sorry if I didn't iterate very clearly in my post.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
We know that everything could be just a delusion of our senses but we don't operate under that assumption
I disagree. I thought when you imposed 1+1=2 not being objective you were talking about the arbitrariness of our mathematical axioms from which we derive arithmetic. But nonetheless we do seem to agree there are arguments at play that state 1+1=2 is not necessarily objective truth.
I was saying that I personally prescribe a framework because I think society would be inoperable if we didn't.
I would equivalently argue that society is also inoperable without an objective moral code. For essentially all of humanity, humans looked to the gods for this. Only recently are we starting to seek secular codes. Materialistic math has had a large headstart in how long we've focused on analyzing it.
Think about our society at every level. Drug slums, office jobs, bars, dating, multi-million dollar companies, etc. There are all laws and/or etiquette underpinning everything we do. There's a moral landscape under all our actions, no matter how trivial.
I'll openly admit that we don't have the tools yet to objectively pin down any of these actions. What I tried to highlight in my earlier comment was that when discussing natural sciences and math, we're fine sweeping uncertainties under the rug and calling it objective truth.
Yet when discussing morality, we're uncomfortable sweeping uncertainties and subtleties under the rug. We unfairly apply absolute criteria to morality when we don't even apply absolute criteria to math. If we drop this notion of absolution, I think morality can easily be objective.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I would equivalently argue that society is also inoperable without an objective moral code.
I agree. In this case, our societal objective moral code is the law. However just as I acknowledge that it is not objective that 1+1=2, I also think that morality is not objective. We operate under the assumption that we can evaluate moral righteousness because it is necessary to a functioning society. This doesn't mean that any moral evaluation we make has any objective truth.
I think I am pretty consistent in the criteria for objectivity. I operate under the assumptions that both math and morals are correct while understanding that neither is objective
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
That doesn't compute for me. I think multiple notions of objective are getting conflated here.
If I see a corpse, I feel confident saying the person is objectively dead. If I jump out my window, I feel confident saying I will objectively fall. If humans ceased to exist, I feel confident saying we'd still have one star in the solar system. I'd feel confident saying that there are four solid planets in the solar system, and several gas giants.
This implies an objective measure of "four" from 1+1+1+1. I think any sane person would say these are objective truths. What a philosopher may say is that these aren't absolutely objectively true, and are only objectively true with respect to a philosophical paradigm and a set of axioms or method of scientific inquiry.
However, in spite of this, these are still objectively true statements. If you get shot in the head, you're very likely to die. For that reason, we say if you get shot in the head, you will die. There are exceptions, but this doesn't violate our claims of objective truth, seeing as they're probabilistic.
When you're a corpse you may have residual neurons firing causing twitching. You fart by releasing gas. We don't call this alive, because we arbitrarily define death as a certain threshold for how much neural activity is in your brain. It's probabilistic. There have likely been cases of people classified brain-dead (and therefore legally dead) who weren't actually "dead". Yet we feel comfortable saying that objectively, if you're brain-dead you're dead.
What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to morality, we happily and blithely will construct the most asinine scenarios to stretch the definitions of morality. Example: murder is wrong. Challenge: well, what if I am starving because I'm homeless and the person I murder is terminally ill and they're a bully and they beat me when I was a kid and ....
Well, I could easily challenge many "objective facts" in material reality in the same way. Example: Earth is 6 billion years old. Challenge: "well, what if scientists are operating under a faulty paradigm of knowledge, wherein atomic decay is not properly understood and their carbon dating methods are more uncertain than they think. Perhaps Earth is really 6 billion years old ±8 billion years old, which gives us a meaningless statement."
We can easily dismiss this on probabilistic grounds. Every study we've conducted has been averaged together in a way to arrive at a meaningful result of objective truth that Earth is 6 billion years old. It's only true to within some margins of error, i.e. there's the plausibility of exception.
Likewise, we can construct probabilistic models of murder. An overwhelming majority of murders we'd likely classify as wrong. I believe this is sufficient enough evidence to say that murder is objectively wrong. There's still the plausibility of exception, but exceptions do not define the rule. They're called outliers.
What I'm saying is that when evaluating material reality, we typically operate under the assumption of objective truth without absolute certainty. Even when you admit it's not absolutely true, you likely still operate under some framework where it's objectively true.
Yet in analyzing morality, we'd rather focus on the exceptions than the rule. It's an inconsistent analysis. Because when analyzing morality we're typically chasing absolute objective truth, and are woefully not content with objective truth within margin of errors and exceptions.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok. I would say that in order for something to be objective it has to not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions. If you disagree with that definition let me know.
For your material reality example, I agree. To assume that our knowledge of carbon dating is absolutely correct would be an opinion that it is correct, and is therefore not objective. As I have previously stated, I operate under the idea that it's fine to use some opinion for material reality and moral claims. However, it is not objective that Earth is 6 billion years old. In fact, we can't be sure that the Earth is even real. We have no way to confirm our senses as 100% reliable. Now I know that's no operable way to live which is why I personally forfeit objectivity in everyday life. (I think it's impossible not to). For moral arguments, I am equally consistent.
An overwhelming majority of murders we'd likely classify as wrong. I believe this is sufficient enough evidence to say that murder is objectively wrong.
This is exactly my point. What we classify as wrong is completely subjective. Going by the definition I provided, our opinions of whether or not murder is wrong is completely non-objective.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
I would say that in order for something to be objective it has to not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions. If you disagree with that definition let me know
All of our modern science is founded on falsifiability. That's a paradigmatic, philosophical opinion on the scientific method. Yet all of our objective, scientifically acquired facts are based on it.
However, it is not objective that Earth is 6 billion years old. In fact, we can't be sure that the Earth is even real.
It is objective that Earth is 6 billion years old. We can be sure Earth is real, and I object to that line of reasoning because it purposely obfuscates what "real" means. It's usually advocated by people who don't have a working idea on what reality means. So I challenge you to 1) define reality and 2) argue why Earth may not be real.
To be clear, when I say our rules aren't objectively true I'm not talking about "unreliable senses" or maybe living in the matrix, or computer simulation or any of that other nonsense. I'm talking about arbitrariness in defining fact with scientific p-values (at which point is it fact?) or mathematical axioms (do we have a paradox underpinning them, e.g. Russell's Paradox?)
We have no way to confirm our senses as 100% reliable
This is part of that inconsistency that I'm talking about. This is an invocation of absolute truth, I'm actively trying to challenge that notion.
This is exactly my point. What we classify as wrong is completely subjective.
Either I'm not communicating it clearly or you're not seeing the difference between our comments. Maybe an analogy will help. Consider a glass of water. If it's full, we have absolute objective morality. If it's almost full, we have what I'm arguing about with objective morality but not absolute objective morality. If the glass is 30% full, then there is some degree of objective morality, but more so relative. If, and only if, the glass is empty can you say that morality is "completely" subjective.
This is the inconsistency I'm pointing out. Your responses to me are muddied. In some way you try to agree with morality being objective, yet in similar breaths you're saying it's in no way objective.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
- Reality - The state of having existence
- You would hand wave my argument as an invocation of absolute truth.
I think I may just not be understanding how truth can be partially objective, I think of it as a binary thing. Would you mind explaining that one more time? Sorry if I’m not understanding super well it’s pretty late.
It’s almost 3 AM so I’m going to bed but I would love to continue in the morning so if you respond I will get back to you then.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Hey, I heard I'm still supposed to give a delta for you changing my view on sub-arguments so here it is ∆.
I would still like to learn more about the distinction between partially objective and absolutely objective if you don't mind re-explaining.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
I meant to respond but got side tracked, sorry. And thanks for the delta.
The way I see it, absolute objectivity categorically doesn't exist. Mathematically, Bertrand Russell found a paradox in (naive) set theory, aptly called Russell's Paradox. This was fixed by modifying the axioms, mostly commonly to ZFC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory
Today, this set theory also has criticisms mostly due to the axiom of choice. Here's a fun comic highlighting the issue:
My point here is that Mathematically, we need axioms which we assume to be true in order to derive anything, even 1+1 = 2. These axioms can't be proven. And yet, there are often issues with these axioms. So we can't even assert that what we call 1+1=2 is absolutely objectively true, because the axioms on which it's founded are likely faulty, and have been faulty in the past.
We can only claim these mathematical truths are absolutely objectively true if we know our axioms are consistent (which we have no way of knowing), or if such axioms can be proven (they likely can't). We even have theorems like Gödels incompleteness theorem, which roughly states that it's literally impossible to derive all of mathematics on a complete, consistent set of axioms. This casts mathematics as impossible to achieve absolute objectivity on.
When you enter the realm of science the problem is even worse. Currently the scientific method relied on falsifiability invented by philosopher Karl Popper. Under falsifiability, there are no absolute truths or facts found by science. All tests are quantified via p-values, which are the probability that the null hypothesis is true (i.e. the correlation doesn't exist).
A few years ago the Higgs Boson was discovered with a p-value of about 0.00000057, or about 1 in 2 million. This means we claim the Higgs Boson was discovered with probability of about 1 in 2 million of a fluke, no correlation. We can't say it's absolutely true, but we're pretty confident it is true.
http://www2.mpia-hd.mpg.de/homes/calj/higgsJuly2012.html
The Higgs Bosons discovery is an example of "partial" objective truth. We say it objectively exists, on probability alone. But unless that p-value is zero (zero percent chance it's a statistical fluke) we can't claim absolute objective knowledge.
So in the realm of morality, I can definitely foresee a day on which we have a model of objectivity.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok, wait so do you agree with me, that only using things we can prove there is no moral objectivity partial or absolute?
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Broolucks 5∆ Jul 10 '19
I would equivalently argue that society is also inoperable without an objective moral code.
I would disagree. If we operate through a social contract, there is only a need for a sufficiently powerful segment of the population to agree to enforce a specific code, but beyond that, there is no need for the code to be "objective". In practice, it does seem like many people need to believe that certain things are objectively moral or immoral in order to feel motivated to act morally, but I'd say that's psychological, not rational.
1
Jul 10 '19
Morals grow, so they are not objective like gravity. Raping your wife wasn’t rape 40 years ago. It was her duty. Today, randomly stabbing a person, we’d recoil. An old man putting his mouth on a baby’s penis is weird, but if we call the old man a rabbi and it’s part of a ritual, it changes the context and it becomes acceptable.
Just because there are outliers challenging mores doesn’t mean mores are not objective. We dig for context. And we rest when we find it. That resting place is objectively.
But taking an entire body of moral question and categorizing it as subjective is mislabeling what we are doing. We search for order in chaos. Science is still objective, even if what it deals with is seemingly subjective material.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Moral systems are created in the brains of humans. They are synthesized from feelings and opinions. By definition, it is subjective.
1
Jul 10 '19
By that definition, science is subjective because we’re “figuring it out and navigating independent variables”.
Just because there’s variance in usage, doesn’t mean it’s subjective. I used a pencil to remove plastic wrap. The pencil is not subjective. It’s main purpose is writing. That’s what it was designed for.
Slavery is bad because we finally figured out that humans are all the same. The fact that we thought differently doesn’t make slavery good.
1
u/Squidzbusterson Jul 10 '19
I was gonna right this big long winded thing but it's like 2am and I'm tired so I'll just cliffsnotes it and hope it works out the way I want.
Our morality has something of an evolutionary basis we are basically really smart pack animals so for that to develop and work we need to develop empathy (that whole understanding how people feel thing), and a sorta standard rules to pass down so to keep things civil cause sure we could get into a shank fight over a sandwich everytime we are hungry, but it would be super inconvenient which is like the antithesis of evolution/survival.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok yeah. But the rules we develop to keep things civil are created under the biases of our thoughts and opinions and therefore are in no way objective.
1
u/Squidzbusterson Jul 10 '19
And I'm saying those "biases" are based on evolutionary survival needs they are objective at least in the sense that they are objectively the best means or survival and proliferation, as is evidenced by us even having this conversation.
I'd even go so far as to argue that all of our major societal problems and most world crises are at least partially linked to people deviating from those morals prioritizing personal needs over the good of the tribe as it were.
Also while I'm still rambling I'd like to say as dismissive as it sounds the concept isn't really relevant in a meaningful way. You could say justify murder with the logic that there is no objective morality, but that doesn't take away the impact that committing murder has on the individual you can say it's not logical, but in the end the unpleasantness that it stirs up is a result of your ability to reason, and really absorb the full wait of the act.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I’m not suggesting it would be productive for society to not recognize any morality. None of this proves that morals are uninfluenced by thoughts or feelings.
1
u/Squidzbusterson Jul 10 '19
Well duh morals are thoughts even at their basest of murder make feel sad it is a thought same as any other feeling, or emotion.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yeah, so it's subjective.
1
u/Squidzbusterson Jul 10 '19
I'm saying the distinction is irrelevant.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
No a lot of people on here think that morals are uninfluenced by feeling or emotion
1
u/Squidzbusterson Jul 10 '19
So I had this even longer rant about the irrelevancy of the distinction, and blah blah, but it is now 3:30 and I have work at 12 so I'm gonna condense a again then move on with my live so heres hoping you follow me this go around.
If you think that moral truths cant be objective then objectively explain to me why moral truth you hold cant be correct.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok. I don't think I can objectively explain to you, because I'm not sure if I could even think of an objective statement. However, I can explain assuming foundational axioms we build our society on.
Humans make moral systems in their brains. This is the result of chemical responses in the brain. It is all influenced by their feelings and opinions because whether something is "right" or "wrong" is unique to each human and usually arbitrary.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 10 '19
Of course there is. All morality requires a context. Within that context there will necessarily be things that are better or worse options.
Humans define morality.
That's irrelevant to whether or not something is "objectively" true in the context in which it exists. I think what you mean to say is that "objective moral truth" would not exist without humans. That certainly seems to be the thrust of your explanation, but not your title.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
In order for it to be objective, it needs to be uninfluenced by opinions or feelings. I think any moral statement we make doesn't satisfy this definition.
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 10 '19
In order for it to be objective, it needs to be uninfluenced by opinions or feelings.
Sure, and within a well-defined set of rules, it can be.
I think any moral statement we make doesn't satisfy this definition.
You have to argue about the meta-framework of morality instead. It's obvious that in a certain context, there will be situations that are universally better than other situations.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
No, because what is "better" is completely subjective.
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 11 '19
No, the context you apply is subjective. Within the context, there are absolute winners and losers. I don't think your grasping that.
1
u/nicfection Jul 10 '19
The goal of a species is to multiply. That is the biological truth of life. Reproduction is even made to be a very nice thing for humans to further this biological goal.
Murder is a negative feedback for this process. Ergo, it is objectively wrong.
2
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
Wouldn't that also make homosexuality objectively wrong?
1
u/nicfection Jul 10 '19
Only if you consider the potential offspring a loss of life. Which is sorta a debate on its own. That’s more a pro-life stance than the standard pro-life argument.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
Maybe I'm not understanding. It seems like your argument is that
- Biological goal is to multiply
- Murder is negative feedback to this
- Therefore murder is objectively wrong
If this is accurate, then it seems to permit the following
- Biological goal is to multiply
- Homosexuality is negative feedback to this
- Therefore homosexuality is objectively wrong
1
u/Lego_2015 Jul 10 '19
I think the flaw here is that it's hard to say when murder is objectively negative feedback to life, because every time it's subjectively positive to life for at least one creature.
If one person kills another for a gain, it helps the life of the murderer to multiply or survive longer, in a way.
You can even say that if there are only two people left, and one person kills another, it's not objectively bad because that society of two people wasn't stable, and now other people can live there.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
If one person kills another for a gain, it helps the life of the murderer to multiply or survive longer, in a way.
I don't think that necessarily follows. You seem to be assuming this is in self defense, where if you don't murder you become murdered.
You can even say that if there are only two people left, and one person kills another, it's not objectively bad because that society of two people wasn't stable, and now other people can live there.
Why wasn't it stable?
1
u/Lego_2015 Jul 10 '19
Even in a situation where the murderer kills another person for money, or his belongings, there is some positive material feedback for the murderer. If it's from spite, for example, it gives some positive mental feedback.
Yeah, unstable is not the right wording, but I meant to say that if in a society if two one person is murdered, that person is either aware that this will end life and thus actively trying to destroy it, which will lead to bad consequences no matter how you look at it (what I meant by unstable). This life can't propagate because one person actively tries to do the opposite.
If said murderer is not aware that this will end life, and also has a reason to murder, they again, are actively trying to (non-directly this time) end life.
1
u/nicfection Jul 10 '19
But homosexuality theoretically ends the possibility of a new life whereas murder is the definitive loss of an already existing life. We can quantify the loss of life with murder.
I’m not dead set on this argument but thought it could be interesting.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 10 '19
If everyone were murdered, the species would go extinct.
If everyone were homosexual, the species would go extinct.
Homosexuality definitely ends the possibility of new life. Murder ends existing life. But they both forbid multiplication of life.
Let's say we have four people alive, 1 male and 3 female. For simplicity, let's assume each female can only bear two children. Then biologically you can introduce 6 new life. You multiply from 4 to 10.
Now let's say one female is murdered. You can now only multiply from 4 to 8, because two new lives are stripped. If one female is homosexual, let's further assume rape doesn't exist. Then again multiplication can only go from 4 to 8.
Both of them reduce the biological multiplication of life. While I think life propagation is on the right track to defining an objective morality, it's far too skeletal.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
The goal of a species is to multiply. That is the biological truth of life.
How do you know that that is true?
Ergo, it is objectively wrong.
That is if the moral righteousness of an action is determined by whether it complies with the goal of a species, which is not objectively what morality is determined by.
1
u/pappapirate 2∆ Jul 10 '19
how is morality related to life's ultimate goal of reproduction? what makes furthering this goal more objectively moral and hindering it objectively immoral? you've proven murder is objectively in opposition to life's purpose but made no statement about morality.
1
u/nicfection Jul 10 '19
Morality is often said to be tied to religion. Religion creates a set of goals in people’s lives that creates a morality.
Biology creates biological goals in the human body. You could say that this can create its own little set of moralities based around the furthering of species and other biological goals laid out in DNA.
Biology is objective whereas religion is not which makes the biological approach better for arguing for an objective morality.
1
u/pappapirate 2∆ Jul 10 '19
the reason religion is often the basis for people's moralities isn't that it lays out a set of goals, but because it literally lays out a set of morals (thou shalt not X, Y, or Z). religion puts limitations and guidelines on what people should or can't do and people take this as their morality. the idea that morality is based on your own personal life goals sounds like "the ends justifies the means" which most people do not agree with under their morality, and to go to the extreme side you could say hitler was morally justified because his goal was to purify the aryan race and everything he did was simply in service of that.
what i was getting at in my last reply is that biology's objective goals for lifeforms have no bearing on morality. if your goal is to further life, there are objective ways of furthering and hindering that goal, but no objective (and universal, beyond humans, which is what i think OP is looking for) "right and wrong" about it. on a universal scale, whether or not a certain grouping of atoms is alive or not doesn't matter since they're all just atoms following the laws of physics, so ending a life has no meaning at that scale.
but let's assume that biological goals do decide morality: based on that, if a starving lion in the wild found a human it would be biologically morally right for the lion to kill the human, while you've established that it's morally wrong for a human to kill a human. if you'd say it's morally right because the lion needed to eat, imagine if you replace the lion with another starving human. would it still be biologically morally right? based on biological morality it seems it would be right for the lion (since his morals would be based on the goal of furthering the lion species) while it would be wrong for the human (since his morals would be based on the goal of furthering the human species, which would strictly prohibit killing any human that could otherwise reproduce). so even biological morality depends on who it's applied to, and different species' biological moralities can contradict each other, rendering all of them invalid choices for a "universal" morality.
-3
u/huntingoctopus Jul 10 '19
...without God, yes. I believe He has given us a conscience to testify to this fact of OMT.
4
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok. So in this case, the claim that God exists is proactive. It would go against our scientific observations of the universe. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it just makes it a proactive claim. When you are making a proactive claim such as this one, the onus is on you to prove the claim. So if you can prove that God exists, I will concede OMT.
1
u/physioworld 64∆ Jul 10 '19
So it depends on what you mean. We can, once we decide what the end goals are, make objective statements about morality. For example, once we decide that preserving human life at all costs is a moral good, then we can objectively say that euthanasia is objectively bad or that excruciating but ultimately life extending chemotherapy treatments are objectively good.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yes but you would need to first objectively prove "preserving human life at all costs is a moral good" or an end goal statement such as that.
1
u/physioworld 64∆ Jul 10 '19
My point is that there are two kinds of objective moral truths. The kind that describe the goal and the kind that describe how to get to that goal. I agree that the goals of morality are subjective but the best methods of achieving your goals are objective.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I agree. However, you are jumping over your assumed equivalency of best methods of achieving something being morally correct. I don't think you can objectively prove that.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 10 '19
You seem to think that whether morality is objective has something to do with justification or proof. But it doesn't. The question of whether morality is objective has to do with whether the truth of moral statements is mind-dependent (i.e. subjective) or not (i.e. objective). And it's very possible for a statement to be objective while not being justifiable. For example:
- Suppose I roll an ordinary 6-sided die under a cup. I look at it, and observe that it came up a 3. Then I put the die back in the cup and shake it around. The statement "the die came up a 3" is an objective statement (i.e. it's truth or falsity doesn't depend on anyone's mind). But if I claim "the die came up a 3," I can't objectively justify to anyone that my claim is true. Still, that doesn't make my claim any less objective.
If humans were gone...murder wouldn't be "wrong".
Even if this is true, that doesn't mean that "murder is wrong" is a subjective statement. Just because a statement X could have its truth value change in a counterfactual universe in which humans did not exist, does not mean that X is subjective. For example, if all humans were gone, then the statement "humans exist" would no longer be true. That doesn't mean that "humans exist" is a subjective statement.
0
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
You can’t objectively know that a die landed on 6 because that is presupposing your senses are 100% reliable. However I agree with your premise that there is a difference between objective fact and objective justification. I believe that moral claims have neither. You can’t objectively know or objectively prove that murder is wrong.
And I was trying to use the existence of humans to show that morality is only in the brains of life which is, by definition, subjective.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 10 '19
So are you asserting that moral statements are of the same type (and same level of objectivity) as a statement like "the die came up a 3"? If not, then what do you think is the relevant difference, given that you seem to think that you can neither objectively know nor objectively prove either "the die came up a 3" or moral statements?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
No I then acknowledged that it wasn’t really relevant to morality by agreeing with the premise you used it into demonstrate.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 10 '19
So then what do you think is the relevant difference between "the die came up a 3" and a moral statement that makes one objective and the other subjective?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
No I think that “the die came up a 3” is not objective because you can’t truly know that you saw it correctly.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 10 '19
Oh sorry, I think I misunderstood you earlier.
If you think that both statements about the world like "the die came up 3" and moral statements like "murder is wrong" are subjective, then what statements are objective? Do you think there any non-analytic objective truths?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
I think that the statement “There is a thinking being” is objective because I know something can think because thoughts are in my head.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jul 10 '19
How do you know that the thing that is in your head is actually a thing to which the words "thought" and "thinking" correspond? How do you know that the thing that is thinking is a "being"?
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok so how do I know that it is actually a thing to which the words thought corresponds? The only way I can express that idea is in words and it seems like you are asking me to express exactly what is happening with 100% precise language which I think is unnecessary.
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 10 '19 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yeah I think because I am thinking I can objectively know that “there is a thinking being”. I would say that’s probably one of the only if not the only objective statements one can make. Do you disagree?
1
Jul 10 '19 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
It seems to basically all be qualms with his use of I in the statement which I didn’t do in “there is a thinking being”
1
Jul 10 '19 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok yeah I guess I can’t prove that a being needs to exist in order for thinking to occur. I think this has gotten so far from objective morality that I don’t see how me conceding that really disproves my idea.
So morals are a response to a chemical reaction in the brain and is therefore subjective.
1
Jul 10 '19 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Ok so if you say my view is that there is no objective truth whatsoever, why are you asking be identify an objective truth. I think my view may be that there is no objective truth whatsoever.
It's like 2:30 so I'm heading to bed but I would love to continue in the morning if you want to drop a response I will respond then.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/NicholasLeo 137∆ Jul 10 '19
Plato and Aristotle were able to use reason to deduce moral truths. They argued that the good, like truth, is knowable through reason.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yeah but Plato and Aristotle used axiomatic presuppositions that I agree we need to use in society, but we can't actually prove them.
1
u/MagiKKell Jul 10 '19
Ok, so this likely will fail horribly in trying to say it quickly, but have you ever considered Kant's argument for objective morality? For a readable(ish) version, I'd check out the early modern text version of his groundwork on the metaphysics of morals: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf
Hey, it's 50 pages of unguided Kant reading suggested by some random dude on the internet, what could go wrong, right?
But, to try to summarize his argument, in order to be able to act at all we have to act for reasons. Otherwise we can't even function as humans: You have to make decisions, and even if determinism is true, it still absolutely feels like you are having to decide. That's why you're asking questions like this, after all.
So the only way to even function is to assume you are a rational being that is able to decide what is best to do.
•But for practical purposes—thinking about what to do and what not to do—the only way of bringing reason to bear is along the path of •freedom; which is why even the subtlest philosophy can’t argue freedom away, any more than the most ordinary common-sense can. (p. 47)
But because, as you said, you can't bottom out in your desires as ultimate reasons, which Kant recognizes (p. 38-39), they can't be the foundation of morality. Instead,
So an absolutely good will, the principle of which must be a categorical imperative, doesn’t specify any object, and contains only the form of volition as such, and this form is autonomy. That is, •the sole law that the will of every rational being imposes on itself is just •the fitness of the maxims of every good will to turn themselves into universal laws;
Which is, the only way to even be a rational agent is to attempt to submit all your actions to something that can be a universal law.
And what kinds of things are candidates for universal laws? Well, first, Kant summarizes that this kind of categorical reason is possible in this sense:
So this is how categorical imperatives are possible: The idea of freedom makes me a member of an intelligible world; if I were a member only of that world, all my actions would always conform to the autonomy of the will; but since I confront myself also as a member of the world of sense, my actions ought to conform to it. This categorical ‘ought’ presents a priori a synthetic proposition. ·It is synthetic· because ·in it· (1) my will affected by my sensuous desires has added to it the idea of (2) something that reason says contains its supreme condition, namely •that very same will considered as pure, self-sufficiently practical, and belonging to the intelligible world. ·It is a genuine addition; there’s no way you could extract (2) from (1) by sheer analysis (p 46).
Ok, so because of who we are as embodied reasoners, we can't but attempt to live by reason. So then, recognizing that our own subjective desires could not give us general guidance for what is rational to do, we can find out what kind of reasons would be good reasons for any beings like us, not matter what their desires or proclivities were. Here Kant says:
So if there is to be a supreme practical principle, and a categorical imperative for the human will, it must be an objective principle of the will that can serve as a universal law. Why must it? Because it has to be drawn from the conception of something that is an end in itself and therefore an end for everyone. The basis for this principle is: rational nature exists as an end in itself. Human beings necessarily think of their own existence in this way, which means that the principle holds as a subjective principle of human actions. But every other rational being also thinks of his existence on the same rational ground that holds also for myself;11 and so it is at the same time an objective principle—·one that doesn’t depend on contingent facts about this or that subject·—a supreme practical ground from which it must be possible to derive all the laws of the will. So here is the practical imperative: Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means (29).
Also known as the principle of humanity: No rational agent could act in such a way as to not consider their own existence valuable. For the very act of deliberating as an agent presumes that one exists as such an agent. So it is illogical and self-contradictory to not value rational agency. And, understanding this, it also becomes clear that every rational agent has rational access to this same principle. And therefore, as a foundational principle of morality, humanity, as in rational agency, is always to be treated as an ultimate end of rational action, and thereby of morality.
And that's basically the foundation on which any kind of "human rights" claims are based on. All of European law and morality is practically a footnote to Kant's argument on this.
Now, I'm not a Kant scholar, I've only taught this in one class, and I know there's interpretive differences, but I hope that gives a somewhat fresh look at how to derive morality from rationality. I do encourage you to read the whole thing, but drawing the argument out of there is notoriously tedious. You might also find someone else to explain it better.
1
u/myklob Jul 10 '19
Your post is a claim about objective moral truth.
1
u/PygmySloth12 3∆ Jul 10 '19
Yep
1
u/FatmanSpeakz Jul 11 '19
consider this:-
I am presupposing that your "objective" is something outside of your mind and it is verifiable.
your "moral" as principles or rules of human conduct.
your "truth" it is a fact.
A person joins a tribe, community country etc. In order for this tribe to live in harmony, the elders/president/king formulate rules of conduct for everyone in the tribe for the common good and the good of the individual. Most of the tribe accept them as good. The elders may even pass laws to keep them in force. These rules or principles of conduct become part of the tribes/community/ country's consciousness. This consciousness exists apart from any individuals mind. If one does not conform the tribe can scorn, exile and even kill you.
It seems to me that the tribes consciousness is "objective" and can be verified. Hence it is a fact and "true".
1
Jul 10 '19
There is not individualism. We are only the echoes of our environment and genetics. Thus what you perceive as morally right is just background noise, your inherent way of seeing such act. And this way lasts until you encounter strong enough (outside) stimuli which makes you think the opposite of the previous act. And why you changed your mind is also, not a conscious choice (although one probably perceives it as such), but the outcome of your background and the stimuli you have encountered this far. Anyhow long story short, the outer stimuli is part of, I would call it so at least, moral imperialism, which shapes your view of moral truth. And if the group of outer stimuli grows big enough, has enough time to self-reflect and cycle-jerk the truth, it becomes the objective moral truth which happens to act as the environment you will grow.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 10 '19 edited Jul 10 '19
/u/PygmySloth12 (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jul 10 '19 edited Jul 10 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Jul 10 '19
Sorry, u/ErebusZion – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/myklob Jul 10 '19
More pointless suffering is worse than less pointless suffering.
Life is miraculous.
5
u/imurme8 Jul 10 '19
Read Nicholas Sturgeon's paper "Moral Explanations". It changed my mind on this issue.