Question of the Month
“Is Morality Objective?”
From Philosophy Now magazine
Glyn Hughes
Hmm…
The part [perhaps] where “do the right thing” meets a brain equipped only to do what it must?
In other words [perhaps] before you can test your moral narrative here you need first to test the extent to which it might possibly be the only one that you could ever have had.
On the other hand, there are surely parts of the brain that come closer to “human morality” than others. But how to distinguish them. How to pin down precisely the manner in which they are intertwined when any particular one of us is faced with the next context in which we must decide what is in fact the right thing to do. Objectively.
And the extent to which that pertains to fact at all.
This is the part that most of us here have little choice but to leave to the “experts”. After all, what do we know about the actual science here? Only what we read, right? So that what we think we know depends a lot on who and what we read. Not unlike so many other discussions we have here.
“There does seem to be…”
Okay, then bring an assessment of this sort down to earth and examine in more detail what your feelings and experiences are telling you about particular conflicting behaviors based on conflicting value judgments in an actual context.
How might the “fixed and objective process by which the moral comparison” is made be applicable in regard to, say, the immigration debate?
Question of the Month
“Is Morality Objective?”
From Philosophy Now magazine
Paul Mealing
That’s always been my point of course.
It’s the difference between words defining and defending the meaning of other words in an argument and this meaning then confronting a set of assumptions that breeds a very different meaning. The two then forced to confront a context in which the variables embedded in actual human interactions can come at you from all directions. Factors applicable to genes, to memes, to historical and cultural norms, to gender, to ethnicity, to class.
And then, individual to individual, we confront sequences of personal experiences that can vary considerably. Communication breakdowns happen all the time. The same words are being exchanged but in the world of value judgments it can often seem as though there is little recognition of that at all.
So, what then, Mr. Philosopher? Is there really the equivalent of, say, the Golden Mean here? Or, even more remarkably, a frame of mind that is argued to reflect the actual moral obligation of those said to grasp the wisdom that some insist is within the reach of the technical discipline? Moral narratives said to be most in sync with such philosophical tools as logic and epistemology.
In other words, when “morality in theory” comes face to face with political agendas rooted in conflicting value judgments pertaining to a particular context:
What else is there then but to go along with this or to insist that, no, philosophers are able to establish what all rational people [in India or anywhere else] are bound to do in this particular set of circumstance.
The other side of the coin. Once someone has managed to convince themselves that, philosophically, moral obligations are within reach, how far will they go in insisting that others are obligated to share those beliefs. In either a God or a No God context.
How far is one permitted to go in rewarding those who are “one of us” and in punishing those who are “one of them”?
My point is merely to suggest that this struggle is embedded in the very components of my own moral nihilism. There is no getting around the struggle other than in attempts to mitigate it through democracy and the rule of law.
Both objective and subjective morality have both theory (I/we think this is good) and practice (I/we try to implement what we think is good). The difference is that objective morality relies on external measures to determine what is good and to evaluate it. Subjective morality is largely in the mind … whatever you think is good, then is good and external measures can be entirely ignored.
Pedophiles are made to feel guilty too.
And thieves, killers and rapists.
End result : If you let these gangs rape and kill whenever they want to, then India becomes a shithole for young women. Objectively.
That sounds like his subjective theory of correct morality, since he does not refer to any external reasons for why it is appropriate.
Okay, let’s bring these “assessments” down to earth. There is what John believes is true subjectively about gun control “in his head”; and there is everything that we can determine is true objectively about gun ownership out in the world of human interactions.
But some philosophers here seem more intent on first establishing what we can know – know – about human ethics up in the “general description” clouds of abstraction. We must first rigorously define the meaning of the words we use in our discussions/debates. And indeed we can encounter arguments that go on and on for pages and barely touch down on or in any particular context where actual behaviors do come into conflict over value judgments.
Instead, only after having being in sync technically, intellectually can we then go on to assess the moral parameters of gun control such that we can then go on to establish legislation that will go a long way toward minimizing – eliminating? – the sort of carnage we just witnessed in El Paso and Dayton.
Same with human sexuality. Only when we are entirely clear and in sync technically, intellectually, philosophically about those behaviors argued to be objectively good or objectively bad can we jettison such “external measures” as God and establish moral obligations in regard any and all sexual behaviors.
Then even the sexual sociopaths who, in a No God world, insist that morality here revolves around satiating their own wants and needs can at least know that philosophically they are behaving immorally.
Question of the Month
“Is Morality Objective?”
From Philosophy Now magazine
Jonathan Tipton
And, yet, for many, after the “initial” reaction is long gone they are still fiercely convinced there is [there must be] an intrinsic value to be found in one set of behaviors over another.
Some, of course, will allow themselves to acknowledge the complexities we can encounter out in the real world:
But this sort of thinking is almost never taken in the direction that I go on this thread. Instead, the assumption is made that when push comes to shove, complexities or not, there is still a fundamental obligation to be found in any given context. We might not be able to quite pin it down but it’s still there.
For some through God and for others through Humanism.
But it is clearly not possible for many to believe there is no final obligation at all. The implications of that for human interactions is just too…dreadful?
Even the Karpel Tunnels among us who accept that objective morality is not likely to be around, concoct a rendition of “pragmatism” that still manages to afford them some measure of comfort and consolation given the behaviors that they choose.
I’m simply unable to grasp how this actually “works” for them “in their head” given the manner in which I have come to understand the role that dasein and conflicting goods plays in human interactions out in the is/ought world. The “fractured and fragmented” sense of “self” down in the “hole”.
This is what my own subjectivist / objectivist mind thinks about this from an essentially objectivist perspective which is the correct one :
Morality by definition is subjective so the notion of objective morality is an oxymoron and therefore something that is logically impossible
The irony therefore is that those who declare morality to be objective are without realising it making a statement that is purely subjective
Even if it did exist the fact that it would at least in part be subject to interpretation would render it subjective / objective rather than truly objective
Human minds usually like things to be nice and simple which is why they want morality to be objective but only within their own imagination can it be so
Morality as a concept with real world application is anything but nice and simple for reality is itself not nice or simple so there must be consistency here
If it is true for all possible subjects, its objective.
It is true for all possible subjects that nobody wants their consent violated. That’s an objective law of good / bad. Someone tried to claim that masochists are the obvious exception, this is false. Masochists feel pleasure where most people feel pain, this is not a statement of consent, there are probably an infinite number of ways that you can violate the consent of a masochist.
Since everyone in existence is having their consent violated in one form or another, we reach a second law of morality - existence is morally wrong as it currently is. It’s bad. It’s currently evil.
This always gets tricky [for me] because in discussions of morality [in philosophy venues], we can slide in and out of the “technical” components embedded in logic and epistemology, and the “existential” components embedded in points of view regarding particular conflicting goods.
“I” is ever and always the subject inherently citing subjective points of view about morality as an objective truth.
Were there no subjects around there would be no discussions.
After all, up until the evolution of matter into self-conscious minds [assuming some measure of free will] this whole controversy would be entirely moot.
So, sure, “I” is the subject. But in regard to human interactions “I” seems clearly able to establish some things and some relationships as true objectively for all of us.
And isn’t that really as far as we can go?
We are no less subjects when we point out that 22 human beings were killed by Patrick Wood Crusius in a recent mass shooting in El Paso. And there are many, many facts that all rational men and women would be able to concur regarding.
But when he explains why he felt justified in doing what he did, how are philosophers/ethicists able to establish that in fact this constituted [objectively] an immoral act?
Or that objectively it is immoral for private citizens to own assault weapons.
Or that objectively it is possible to establish the optimal or the only rational argument in regard to immigration policy.
My own subjective frame of mind “here and now” is basically in sync with this. It seems a reasonable manner in which to think it through.
But in turn I deem it to be nothing more than another existential contraption. There does not appear to be a way in which to establish beyond all doubt that all rational men and women are obligated to share this frame of mind.
And that is because there does not appear to be a way in which to rule out entirely the existence of God. Or, sans God, the existence of an argument able to be demonstrated as in fact an obligatory frame of mind for reasonable and virtuous human beings.
I can only note instead how “here and now” I think this instead of that. Knowing that a new experience, a new relationship or access to new information and knowledge might result in me changing my mind.
Admittedly, I’ve never been exactly sure how seriously to take you. Sometimes you come off [to me] as just another godawful Kid here. Other times as [even worse] another godawful objectivist Kid.
But, sure, maybe I’m wrong.
All I can do is to bring your “general description” argument above down to earth.
Now, in regard to the El Paso shooting above, how does someone not wanting his or her consent violated factor into your overall view of objective morality.
The people he shot did not consent to being killed by him. On the other hand, he did not consent to people coming into the country that violate his own sense of what makes America great.
How [philosophically] is it determined which consent here takes precedence?
Same with the argument over assault rifles.
Some give their consent to owning them while others give their consent to living in the country where they are banned.
And neither want their respective consent to be violated.
So [philosophically] which consent takes precedence?
We’re done here. You know, this being the philosophy board. I’m more partial myself to dealing with retorts of this sort in rant. There it just makes more sense not to take them seriously.
