Is there evidence for objective morality?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

A student wrote: “I have read that most philosophers today accept Objective Morality. Why is that?”

The following statements, the ones in quotes, are justified in that they make sense and are reasonable to believe. Furthermore, they are also empirically verifiable.

"Gravity is operative; it is in effect and will attract you - and anything you drop - toward the center of the Earth " is an objective proposition. So also is this one objective: “Humans are value-generating organisms: they have a capacity to generate value, and they do so frequently.” (It also was a moral proposition since it is about humans, about their values, and for all the reasons related to ethics given in the next paragraph.) Hence the second quoted proposition is objective and is moral both at once. Here then is some evidence for these claims:

Every time you give someone service with a smile you are creating value. Every time you do an act of kindness that the recipient finds acceptable and appreciates you are creating value. Every time you express love you are generating value. Every time you respect someone; every time you innovate; every time you solve a problem, or create something, you are generating value. Every time you make someone smile (with you), you are creating value. Etc., etc.

When someone falls off the edge of a roof, without a parachute, they find that gravity is operative.

There is a “cold, hard fact about human nature.” ((And humans, after all, are part of nature.) Allow me to explain: Human beings have a capacity to value, and they often do make evaluations …they value; they make value judgments. That is a fact.

Gravity and electricity are forces of nature; they are always operative. Is there a law of human nature?

Yes, there is. Value creation: we do it all the time. One does it even if he has a low Value Quotient score on the HVP test (which measures value thinking). Say, someone over-values Systemic Value (a moral mistake) and thus earns a low V.Q.(Value Quotient). He may still create something because he is thinking of systems all the time. Or he may be passionate for his cause - because he tends to think in terms of Black-or-White, of either-or. Creativity and passion add value. Adding value is what Ethics is all about. [See the argument for that claim in the Unified Theory of Ethics, pp 28-29.] http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

[As you may be aware, if you read over the essays of M. C. Katz - to which you will find links below - the Existential logical Hierarchy of Value, expressed in the formula S < E < I
was first devised by a brilliant philosopher named Robert S. Hartman, whose bio you can find on Wiki.]

Value is a force of nature. It is created when we don’t resist going in the Intrinsic direction, as indicated in the Existential logical Hierarchy of Value {the HOV}, nor violate it by committing disvalue. For example, using nuclear energy to drop an A-bomb on innocent people: that is committing disvalue. …To combat violence with violence is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it :exclamation: – ( In Pakistan today we are, with our drone attacks, generating new Osama bin Ladins.)

Complying with the Hierarchy of Value, the HOV, always works. In that sense it is analogous with gravity. [If we attempt to violate either one, we only demonstrate it.] Complying with it means going in the direction of Intrinsic valuation (- in Robert Hartman’s sense of the term, not John Dewey’s -) giving it preference over Extrinsic values, and over Systemic values. For, when any dilemma arises there are three basic considerations, or perspectives:

[b]S: What are the codes, standards, traditions,? What would the authorities say?

E: What are the pragmatic considerations? What would solve problems? What is the cost/benefit analysis?

I: How do we build a stronger community? What is the loving thing to do? How do we incentivize better, sweeter cooperation? How cultivate a sense of unity-within-the-diversity? How can everyone better express their individuality, and feel more free, yet more responsible to our common purpose?[/b]

Violating the HOV results in a net loss ( which might look like,though, a short-term gain.) For example, if after a boss in a mean and contemptuous tone nastily commands an employee to fix a piece of machinery - the employee fixes it - and the machine once again now runs: that appears to be a gain in value. However, the resentment that has developed in the staff member, and the subsequent loss of motivation on his part will mean that he won’t throw himself in a dedicated way into fulfilling the purpose of that company. This is a net loss of value. A short-term gain; a long-term loss.

For all the justification given in the initial paragraph morality and objectivity exist simultaneously. Be sure to see the reasonable definition of “morality” which is proposed in the Unified Theory of Ethics system, where it fits in so compatibly and so logically. Click on the second link below.

:bulb: For clear, specific details explaining the HOV and its practical applications, see these references: click on the links below. All of them are PDF files, safe to open. Happy reading !!! :slight_smile:

2

I know we assign values to things. We can say that is objective, or subjective. We are free to say either thing. Humans are bound only by their own rules, but they made those rules. “Objective morality” is two words. It’s a specific mode of view. Some people like this mode of view, some don’t, for various reasons. There is evidence that humans moralize almost everything. They value-ize it too. That’s just what they wanted to do.

3

I think first, that there is evidence for everything. And that the existence of evidence is not the existence of proof in and of itself.

That being said, and somewhat beside the point, as I understand it, there are several ways that people might go about “objectifying” something. I don’t wanna, and I’m not sure if I could write a good paper about it here in this thread, so I’ll try and be concise, and scattered, and leave a bunch of questions open.

Think about it this way, in law, there’s the reasonable person standard. This basically is a definition which makes it the case that what an individual thinks, “reasonable” is doesn’t matter under the law, because the definition determines a means by which to decide whether an action would have been performed by a reasonable person. It’s sort of the objectification of a concept normally considered dominated by it’s subjective elements, through defining it more narrowly and enforcing that definition by whatever means, force, persuasion, demonstration to the point of acceptance or what have you. Then through a uniform process, (an objective one), comes out a determination as to whether something was objectively reasonable.

Now in morality you have to get more general with the definition it seems. I’m not sure if that’s a real dynamic at play here or one that just occurred to me as a question. But the way I understand it is sort of like this. If you look at morality through in the way it’s most commonly looked at, it literally seems like nothing but a big old pile of subjective notions piled on top of one another and haphazardly thrown around all over the place with nothing objective about it.

BUT…in fact, if you back up a little from the details and generalize a bit more, then you can start finding uniformity among all these subjective things. At a certain point, you’ve been able to determine what all the elements of it are, and which ones are predictable and therefore objective, and it’s more than likely the stuff that’s going to be found in the structure by which the thing itself serves it’s function.

All morality serves the function of…“something extremely general and uncontroversial definition which includes instances of morality and only instances of morality”.
A collection of propositions exists which constitute a set of facts which correspond to the above definition
The set of propositions from the previous sentence are a relgion.

So that’s pretty basic, but in a sense, you’ve now objectified religion, or at least proven some kind of objective element, so the subjective leaning types can’t completely shut you down.

The truth is, imo, (which is where a alot of truth lies), that no object whether fully reduced or a bundle of properties, from any perspective, in the actual world, after a full analyzation could ever be properly determined to not have attached to it elements of both sides of the subject/object distinction.

4

Objectivity and subjectivity seem together to be causing problems, as concepts.
They were supposedto be utilities, and in some ways I guess they still are, but, they’re causing problems.

Evidence is like reasons. Allot of things have evidence and reasons. Subjects have reasons, and objects also appear to have reasons.

If I were you I’d toss the whole objectivity thing out. It’s only a classification. It’s not a real thing.

5

Dan, no one contests that it is subjective. The other option has been the controversial one.

I am not the one who proposed the “either-or.” Many students are trapped by confusion into thinking it has to be one or the other. This is what is known as Systemic thinking; and it is one of the lowest forms of valuation - though it is better than transposing values (unless one is writing poetry and thus doing it deliberately.) Below unintentional transpoition in worth is: indifference to conscious human life.

6

I couldn’t agree more. What do you think of the definition of morality I offer? See pages 3 and 4 in ASPECTS OF ETHICS - http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/Aspects%20of%20Ethics%20.pdf This was written for students of Philosophy, not for the layman: the person-in-the-street wouldn’t get it probably. Do you understand it? Can you grasp it?

Any questions?

7

How is that so?

8

With all due respect, I don’t quite know what you see as a problem?

Are you questioning that gravity is operative? You could perform an experiment such as letting go of something you held in your hand and watch as it falls lower. (I was assuming that you were inhabiting the planet, Earth …but maybe you are somewhere else - in which case I understand the problem one may be having with it.) [Physicists will assign a high probability to the the proposition, yet will allow - a tiny probability - to the event of an item floating upward when released from one’s clenched fist. Ordinarily this is classified as ‘an anomaly.’]

Or are you asking for a definition of “objectivity”? I already in previous posts defined that as: inter-subjectivity - a consensus of the views of those who are educated in the specific field relevant to the topic. It is a theorem of Formal Axiology that the best value judgments are made by those who know their facts. If you are extremely cynical you may refer to the public consensus as ‘a shared delusion.’

Just what is it in the above quoted passage that you are inquiring about??

9

The basis of human valuation is the difference between the real self and the ideal self?

10

Okay. So it’s a proposition about a consensus. usually, we’d call that a consensus view - of which science is full. It’s also surely a consensus view that humans create values. But it’s worth pointing out that consensus views are not mind-independent - they depend upon the “minds” of those making up the consensus. So it might be confusing to use the terminology “objective proposition”. There’s surely evidence for consensus-view morality, or moralities. But moral facts would then be the same as scientific facts. What is fact today tends to be fiction tomorrow. Consensus views in science have fallen by the wayside regularly.

I can accept that people create values. i can accept that as a fact, sure. But the rest of your OP is gobbledegook. And yes, I have read the linked material. I just have no idea how it follows from the first part of your OP.

11

They do no such thing. They don’t believe it will float upward at all. They don’t assign probabilities to such events. That’s a misconception that, almost certainly, comes from a narrow set of quantum mechanics experiments.
Physicists look at the physical arrangement of a system and predict motion based on prior experience. Or they look at the physical arrangement of the system and observe the motion and then describe the motion.

12

Can ANYTHING be proven to be absolute?

If not, then the same logically applies to morality.

13

I never claimed that morality is absolute.

I never even brought up the concept of “absolute”.

14

That’s just my conception of subjective morality.

15

I don’t recall claiming that my essays (attempting to cooperatively - with you or anyone who volunteers to help - build a good theory of Ethics) follow from the discussion of how gravity operates in the universe. I hadn’t made the connection earlier, so you won’t find it in those writings. The study of Ethics has moved on, it has made progress as a body of cumulative theory.

A chapter in A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS ventured forth the idea that adding value is what Ethics is all about. Review pages 28-29 of that document. [Btw, I am aware that the vast majority of people retain only 10 percent of what is read, yet retain 90 percent of concepts that they try to teach to others. So if one passes on the learnings to another soon after reading them, and/or discusses what he just read with someone else, one is much more likely to remember later what was right there in front of him as he was reading.]

On page 28, Harry, sitting at the roundtable with the other ethical theorists, their invited guests, and the interns, engaged in what educators would speak of as “Constructive Learning,” offers this thought at the outset of the second paragraph of that chapter: “An ethical objective is to add value to the situations in which
one finds himself or herself.”

Later, at the bottom of the same page, Harry - as a way of adding value to the discussion - adds this: “… the field of Individual Ethics involves questions we may ask ourselves, such as: Shall I make self-improvement a goal? Shall I aim for
(moral) goodness? Do I want to take on responsibility? Do I care if others endure needless suffering? And if so, can I, or will I, intervene in some way to help relieve that suffering? In other words: Do I aspire to add value?” (emphasis added)

Later, Frank (thereby adding value) contributes this as he supports what has been previously discussed: "Ethical standards are not restrictive;
they are liberating…

I propose that adding value be the one norm, or operating
principle that we need to have to incentivize and to motivate
us in the ethical direction."

I believe that the human capacity to create value, among its many other applications, to family life, to government, etc., means that businesses, for example, can add value by arranging that their staff is a happy, cooperative team, wholeheartedly dedicated to the company’s purpose and goals, with the same spirit as a sports team wanting to win. The attitude of the staff, and hopefully the customers too, is (ideally) ‘gain/gain’, meaning mutually-beneficial relationships for all concerned. This is already taught in many forward-thinking Business Ethics departments - which apply basic Ethics to the field of business.

16

I find it quite irrelevant to discuss if “objective morality” exist, it may indeed, but it requires immense intellect, rationallity and knowledge which so few have. Most of all it requires critical thinking, which almost no one can.

17

I think that definition is a lot like what I understand virtue ethics to be. You establish an ideal “virtuous self”, if that’s the frame you wanna put it in, then you have that person strive to act out the ideal. The morality is in the striving, not in the consequence or intention. I guess that’s the big ethical trilogy. The intention people, the consequence people, and the virtue ethics people. I’d say so long as the guy trying to be virtuous is following social norms to whatever degree he has to to stay normal, should be able to get away with about any set of actions he chooses so long as his consequences aren’t bad. The intentional stuff I think comes out the weakest in analyses of real life stuff and how it should work, I like the way the virtue stuff can kind of frame it all nice and neat without disregarding anything important. I agree that ethics is all about sytemization and clarity, like most philosophy should be.

18

Thank you, Smears, for your support. You not only know your schools of moral philosophy well, you also are very perceptive. You give reasons for your conclusions. It so happens that I independently named a certain relation (ordered pair of terms in the system) that I came upon without consciously having in mind Virtue Ethics when I did so. I’m happy to note that you see a resemblance there …which all serves as a kind of confirmation that the new paradigm for ethics is not out of the traditional mainstream, the history of ideas, as one might, because it’s a new and different approach, mistakenly charge it with being so at first glance !!!
Actually it is working to fulfill a goal aspired to by Spinoza, J.S. Mill, H. Sidgwick, and others, namely to make a ‘science’ (a systematic coherent study) out of the multi-fold strands of ethics.

It’s always nice to get confirmation.

[size=85]See also Appendix III of the booklet by M. C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course, on the major schools of ethics, their benefits and deficits.[/size]

19

You know a guy named James Rachels? He wrote that book “the elements of moral philosophy” that goes out to 101 classes like everywhere. I used to get to hang out with him before he died. I learned a lot of philosophy just sitting around talking to professors, to the point that I can kind of do it even though I’ve been to lazy to really read through a lot of the greats. I know Spinoza was all about substance and attribute…I think, but I think that’s just like form and content, or property and relation. It seems more important to me to look at things like what a distinction is and why is exists as opposed to using distinctions as a means of categorization for analysis. If we put things one one side or the other, and doing so by the nature of distinctions combined with the facts about what we can know and how, then I think something arbitrary comes into play which can spoil the whole soup.I dunno I could just be rambling, but I think sometimes when we’re building a system, we can get ahead of ourselves in putting blocks together without realizing that the structure might be better if we broke the blocks into smaller pieces and thus had greater control over the overall build.

At the end of the day in ethical discourse, as far as I can tell, the whole idea is to basically reconcile those three elements of the debate. Consequence, intention, and how to choose which action for what, (might call this the pragmatics associated with executing virtuousness). I dunno man…I dunno…

20

Ok, here’s proof of objective morality…

Explain to me a situation where it is good to harm an innocent child for your own pleasure. Now you might argue that because you like it that makes it good, but you would know that that is not what is meant by “good” in this situation.

Even the Nazis knew that what they were doing to the Jews was not good (as in morally good), they just subjugated the morally good to their opinion of what was politically expedient.