Is morality objective or subjective?

[phyllo]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

I mean it's possible to establish many standards of correct conduct.

In the same way that "stopping at red lights at intersections" is an objective standard of conduct. One can have other standards of conduct at intersections ... roundabouts, various configurations of stop signs, yield signs, various rules for unmarked intersections.

None of those are some sort of 'driving facts' or 'driving properties' which which are floating around waiting to be discovered.

So if in any given community or society there is a commonly held set of moral standards that most members accept and agree with, you would categorise that as objectively based morality?

Yes, but I would add...

The rules of conduct at intersections are not imagined out of nothing. They are based on objective facts about physical movement of people and vehicles. And there are objective facts about how that movement changes when a rule is put in place.

The same is true for morality. There are objective facts about human behavior. With and without rules.

[Immanuel Can]

'Objective morality' doesn't necessarily mean 'universal morality'. There can be many objective moralities.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral. It just tells us that some people call all kinds of stuff -- including slavery, theft, wife-beating, murder and child abuse, to name a few examples -- 'moral.' And many of them assert that their own 'morality' is the universal, true one.

But when they do so, they are only agreeing that whatever "morality" is, it's universal. They just happen to think the real one is their own.

[FlashDangerpants]

In the same way that "stopping at red lights at intersections" is an objective standard of conduct. One can have other standards of conduct at intersections ... roundabouts, various configurations of stop signs, yield signs, various rules for unmarked intersections.

I think maybe you never knew what "objective" means but you were too proud to ask. Those traffic rules are all examples of conventions not objective anything. The whole point of objectivity is not to be contingent on agreements.

[Skepdick]

Taken from our friendly neighbourhood Philosophy Forum from a thread hoping to prove that the abortion povs were not diametrically opposed.

Showing how amusing is the idea or objective morality.

abbo.JPG

So how did you decide that abortion is a moral issue?

[Skepdick]

The whole point of objectivity is not to be contingent on agreements.

Do you ever get tired of being this dumb?

The point of objectivity is entirely contingent upon people deciding what the point of objectivity is.

[phyllo]

In the same way that "stopping at red lights at intersections" is an objective standard of conduct. One can have other standards of conduct at intersections ... roundabouts, various configurations of stop signs, yield signs, various rules for unmarked intersections.

I think maybe you never knew what "objective" means but you were too proud to ask. Those traffic rules are all examples of conventions not objective anything. The whole point of objectivity is not to be contingent on agreements.

As long as you know what 'objective' means, that's all that counts.

[phyllo]

'Objective morality' doesn't necessarily mean 'universal morality'. There can be many objective moralities.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral. It just tells us that some people call all kinds of stuff -- including slavery, theft, wife-beating, murder and child abuse, to name a few examples -- 'moral.' And many of them assert that their own 'morality' is the universal, true one.

But when they do so, they are only agreeing that whatever "morality" is, it's universal. They just happen to think the real one is their own.

Moralities are 'objectively moral' if they produce some benefit for the participants.

[Skepdick]

As long as you know what 'objective' means, that's all that counts.

It doesn't mean anything. It's an unnecessary word. Everything's objective by being exactly the way it is and no other way.

It is by historical accident that things happened one way and not another way.
It's a historical accident that some planets are capable of supporting life, and not others.
But that's no less true about anything - it's a historical accident that some organisms evolved and others became extinct.
And it's a historical accident that some social practices became prolific and others didn't.

But you can't start a philosophical brawl with the truth. You have to manufacture conflict!

So you make up a concept like "subjectivity" and you insist that it's in opposition to; in conflict with "objectivity".

Now fight, morons! Fight!

[FlashDangerpants]

In the same way that "stopping at red lights at intersections" is an objective standard of conduct. One can have other standards of conduct at intersections ... roundabouts, various configurations of stop signs, yield signs, various rules for unmarked intersections.

I think maybe you never knew what "objective" means but you were too proud to ask. Those traffic rules are all examples of conventions not objective anything. The whole point of objectivity is not to be contingent on agreements.

As long as you know what 'objective' means, that's all that counts.

Pewrhaps if you would make the effort to learn, that would also count for something. Not much, but something.

[phyllo]

As long as you know what 'objective' means, that's all that counts.

It doesn't mean anything. It's an unnecessary word. Everything's objective by being exactly the way it is and no other way.

It is by historical accident that things happened one way and not another way.
It's a historical accident that some planets are capable of supporting life, and not others.
But that's no less true about anything - it's a historical accident that some organisms evolved and others became extinct.
And it's a historical accident that some social practices became prolific and others didn't.

But you can't start a philosophical brawl with the truth. You have to manufacture conflict!

So you make up a concept like "subjectivity" and you insist that it's in opposition to; in conflict with "objectivity".

Now fight, morons! Fight!

'Subjective' and 'objective' can be useful words if people are in agreement on the meaning because then we can bypass spelling out every detail of what is being discussed.

As it is, I have to ask exactly how subjective morality works, step by step, so that I can try to figure out what people are actually talking about.

And unfortunately, nobody provides me with the steps.

[Harbal]

I mean it's possible to establish many standards of correct conduct.

In the same way that "stopping at red lights at intersections" is an objective standard of conduct. One can have other standards of conduct at intersections ... roundabouts, various configurations of stop signs, yield signs, various rules for unmarked intersections.

None of those are some sort of 'driving facts' or 'driving properties' which which are floating around waiting to be discovered.

So if in any given community or society there is a commonly held set of moral standards that most members accept and agree with, you would categorise that as objectively based morality?

Yes, but I would add...

The rules of conduct at intersections are not imagined out of nothing. They are based on objective facts about physical movement of people and vehicles. And there are objective facts about how that movement changes when a rule is put in place.

The same is true for morality. There are objective facts about human behavior. With and without rules.

But to know which facts about human behaviour are relevant to morality, there would first need to be established a set of principles by which to judge it, wouldn't there? Principles like, say, it is wrong to unnecessarily harm another human being. But the wrongness of hurting another human being is a subjective judgement, and that is why I say morality is subjective. Any moral code of behaviour is the product of someone's subjective judgement about right and wrong. Not that I object to collective moral behaviour that references a common code of conduct being called objectively based, it's just that, technically, it isn't actually objective, because there is always human judgement at the root of it.

[Skepdick]

'Subjective' and 'objective' can be useful words if people are in agreement on the meaning because then we can bypass spelling out every detail of what is being discussed.

As it is, I have to ask exactly how subjective morality works, step by step, so that I can try to figure out what people are actually talking about.

And unfortunately, nobody provides me with the steps.

Moral discourse progresses/converges much faster on moral conclusions of material significance when one recognizes that the objective/subjective distinction is useless to moral practice.

Would murder be any more; or less wrong if it were subjectively or objectively wrong?

Don't murder babies - it's subjectively wrong! No, fuck you!
Don't murder babies - it's objectively wrong! Sir, yes sir!

From that perspective one could recognize the debate over the subjective/objective nature of morality as intentional red herring and time-wasting. A political tool for stalling actual moral discourse.

[phyllo]

'Subjective' and 'objective' can be useful words if people are in agreement on the meaning because then we can bypass spelling out every detail of what is being discussed.

As it is, I have to ask exactly how subjective morality works, step by step, so that I can try to figure out what people are actually talking about.

And unfortunately, nobody provides me with the steps.

Moral discourse progresses/converges much faster on moral conclusions of material significance when one recognizes that the objective/subjective distinction is useless to moral practice.

Would murder be any more; or less wrong if it were subjectively or objectively wrong?

From that perspective one could recognize the debate over the subjective/objective nature of morality as intentional red herring and time-wasting. A political tool for stalling actual moral discourse.

One can drop the subjective/objective distinction and focus on the mechanics of human interactions.

What behaviors do we want? Why do we want them? How do we get them?

[phyllo]

But to know which facts about human behaviour are relevant to morality, there would first need to be established a set of principles by which to judge it, wouldn't there? Principles like, say, it is wrong to unnecessarily harm another human being.

Your first principle already states the 'wrongness' of 'something'. You have already missed several steps which would lead you to conclude that doing 'something' is wrong in some way.

But the wrongness of hurting another human being is a subjective judgement, and that is why I say morality is subjective. Any moral code of behaviour is the product of someone's subjective judgement about right and wrong.

So you have said.

Not that I object to collective moral behaviour that references a common code of conduct being called objectively based, it's just that, technically, it isn't actually objective, because there is always human judgement at the root of it.

Of course there is human judgement in it.

There is human judgement in deciding that traffic lights are good. That doesn't mean that you can't say that traffic lights objectively improve traffic flow and that they are objectively good.

[Harbal]

'Objective morality' doesn't necessarily mean 'universal morality'. There can be many objective moralities.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral.

As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms. I am absolutely unable to see how there could possibly be some natural universal law concerned with the ethical quality of human behaviour, it is an absurd notion.

It just tells us that some people call all kinds of stuff -- including slavery, theft, wife-beating, murder and child abuse, to name a few examples -- 'moral.' And many of them assert that their own 'morality' is the universal, true one.

Yes, and it is easy to see why some people regard the wrongness of those things as objective truth, but when we think of some other so called immoral issues, such as "fornication" and homosexuality, where there is no human suffering as a consequence, things don't look as clear cut. If someone were to say to me, "it is a self evident truth that slavery is wrong", I would only argue with him if it were being said on a philosophy forum, but were he to say the same thing about sex outside of marriage, I would probably call him an idiot, unless he was much bigger than me.