Thomas Nagel: Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thomas Nagel is a philosophical realist but he does not stretch his morality in term of the extreme of realism.
Nagel DO NOT claim, because there are no independent moral elements, i.e. objective moral facts, moral cannot be objective.

Nagel recognizes that Morality is Objective on the following basis;

Objective reasons
The different classes of reasons and values (i.e., agent-relative and agent-neutral) emphasized in Nagel's later work are situated within a Sidgwickian model in which one's moral commitments are thought of objectively, such that one's personal reasons and values are simply incomplete parts of an impersonal whole.

The structure of Nagel's later ethical view is that all reasons must be brought into relation to this objective view of oneself.

Reasons and values that withstand detached critical scrutiny are objective, but more subjective reasons and values can nevertheless be objectively tolerated.

However, the most striking part of the earlier argument and of Sidgwick's view is preserved: agent-neutral reasons are literally reasons for anyone, so all objectifiable reasons become individually possessed no matter whose they are.

Thinking reflectively about ethics from this standpoint, one must take every other agent's standpoint on value as seriously as one's own, since one's own perspective is just a subjective take on an inter-subjective whole; one's personal set of reasons is thus swamped by the objective reasons of all others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Na ... ve_reasons

Thus Nagel argued that Morality is Objective,
in response to PH's
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?t=24601

Discuss?? Views

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[phyllo]

Have you got any examples of how this works?

Preferably involving ice cream.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you got any examples of how this works?
Preferably involving ice cream.

The eating of ice cream example above is a matter of virtue not morality.
What is related to morality [& ethics] is confined to the management of evil impulses to enable its related good.

Here is an example specific to "morality is objective",
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure [or in war, etc.]"
The above is an objective moral fact in the FSK intersubjective sense [Nagel is one proponent of this].

However, a fundamentalist realist [philosophical] will insist the above is not a 'fact' like "this is a table".
To realists, it cannot be a moral fact, it is merely an opinion, belief, or judgement based on human conditioned mental feelings.
Thus a moral relativist will insist people are entitled to their different moral beliefs.
A moral skeptic "deny or doubt moral knowledge, justified moral belief, moral truth, moral facts or properties, and reasons to be moral." SEP
A moral nihilist believe "nothing is morally right or morally wrong and that morality doesn't exist".

The erroneous basis of the above fundamentalist realist [philosophical] is they believe in a mind-independent reality comprising mind-independent facts, truth, knowledge and objectivity.
Since moral elements are related to feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgment, i.e. all humanly conditioned, moral elements are never mind-independent facts, morality cannot be factual nor objective.

I have argued, the fundamentalist realist [philosophical] belief in an 'absolutely' mind-independent reality is not tenable at all. The realist 'What is fact' is grounded on an illusion.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's 'What is Fact' is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Nagel's view on morality;
Re the moral element,
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure [or in war]"
the above is objective morally based on intersubjectivity as stated by Nagel;

• Nagel: "Thinking reflectively about ethics from this standpoint, one must take every other agent's standpoint on value as seriously as one's own, since one's own perspective is just a subjective take on an inter-subjective whole; one's personal set of reasons is thus swamped by the objective reasons of all others."

In the above case, objectivity is intersubjectivity.

• Nagel: "Reasons and values that withstand detached critical scrutiny are objective, but more subjective reasons and values can nevertheless be objectively tolerated."

In the above, detached critical scrutiny [independent of one's personal opinion] can only be done within a specific Framework and System [FSR-FSK] of a collective-of-subjects [humans] that will enable intersubjective consensus.

Thus the moral element;
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure [or in war]"
is an objective moral fact based on intersubjectivity as conditioned within a morality-proper FSR-FSK.

My view:
Nagel's approach based on "Thinking reflectively [rationally and critically] is limited in a way.
What I had proposed is the objective-moral-fact 'inhibition' [e.g. the above re killing babies] must be supported by empirical verification and justification via the scientific model within a morality-proper FSK [intersubjectively].
This is a possibility in the near future based on the exponential advances of scientific knowledge especially in the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, genetics and so on.

[phyllo]

The eating of ice cream example above is a matter of virtue not morality.

It's ethics.

Here is an example specific to "morality is objective",
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure [or in war, etc.]"

That's a terrible example because most people are unable to discuss it without descending to self-righteousness, defensiveness, avoidance, personal attacks or trolling.

The same goes for topics like abortion, gun control, capital punishment.

That's why the ethics of ice cream is better. People are less attached to right and wrong of it so they are more free, open and flexible with their opinions.

Nagel's view on morality;
Re the moral element,
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure [or in war]"
the above is objective morally based on intersubjectivity as stated by Nagel;

Yeah, you just restated the same things that you wrote in the OP.

The thinking and reasoning of the various agents is not shown or expanded in any way.

It's all abstract and general. It's full of big words that could mean everything, anything or nothing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The eating of ice cream example above is a matter of virtue not morality.

It's ethics.

The "eating of ice cream example" is a case of 'gluttony' which is generally considered to be a 'vice' thus deliberated within 'philosophy of virtue'.
Gluttony is a vice, not a moral element.
The elimination of such a vice of gluttony can be done with self-improvement methods of impulse controls, e.g. mindfulness meditation, education, Bariatric surgery to reduce stomach size, hunger suppressants, medical control of leptin and ghrelin levels to regulate intake of food and other effective approaches to modulate hunger.

Maybe this [nothing to do with morality] will help,


The vice of gluttony had been deliberated within Christian teachings for more than 2000 years.

The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, is a grouping and classification of vices within Christian teachings.[1] According to the standard list, they are pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth, which are contrary to the seven heavenly virtues. These sins are often thought to be abuses or excessive versions of one's natural faculties or passions (for example, gluttony abuses one's desire to eat).

The above is also accepted as a vice within the secular world.

............
I believe to discuss on Ethics or morality [very loose terms and contentious], there is a need to define what is Ethics and Morality.
Generally, what is defined as Ethics and Morality related to what are right or wrong actions, which themselves are very loose terms.

My definition of Morality or Ethics is the management of evil to enable its related good.
What is evil is that which is net-negative to the well-being* of individual[s] and therefrom to humanity. * as related to harms, sufferings leading toward potential fatality.
The killing of humans [babies and all] by humans is one serious evil act.

What are evil acts [no vices] must be established to be relevant and exhaustive within a taxonomy, else we end up with all the vices you list below.

Here is an example specific to "morality is objective",
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure [or in war, etc.]"

That's a terrible example because most people are unable to discuss it without descending to self-righteousness, defensiveness, avoidance, personal attacks or trolling.

The same goes for topics like abortion, gun control, capital punishment.

That's why the ethics of ice cream is better. People are less attached to right and wrong of it so they are more free, open and flexible with their opinions.

A discussion re ice cream [gluttony vice] will not contribute to the critical well-beings of individual[s] and humanity in the prevention of genocides, mass killing, torturing, rapes, slavery and the likes.

Generally topics on "abortion, gun control, capital punishment and the likes" are often discussed within politics [inherently dirty and beastly] which is independent from Ethics and Morality which "descending to self-righteousness, defensiveness, avoidance, personal attacks or trolling."
If topics like "abortion, gun control, capital punishment and etc." are discussed within Morality-proper, it is self directed rationally and thought out critically for the well being of the individuals and humanity.

Nagel's view on morality;
Re the moral element,
"It is immoral to torture and kill babies for pleasure [or in war]"
the above is objective morally based on intersubjectivity as stated by Nagel;

Yeah, you just restated the same things that you wrote in the OP.

The thinking and reasoning of the various agents is not shown or expanded in any way.

It's all abstract and general. It's full of big words that could mean everything, anything or nothing.

As I had stated, Nagel's objective approach is based on "reflective thinking" and critical thinking, I have stated that is good to argue that 'morality is objective' but it is limited.
We need to ask, are there real physical and empirical facts to support the above moral claims - I believe there are.

[Atla]

Reasons and values that withstand detached critical scrutiny are objective, but more subjective reasons and values can nevertheless be objectively tolerated.

Whose detached critical scrutiny? The majority? Obviously for any moral stance there will be people who will take an opposing stance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some Q&A re Detached Objectivity:

What is detached objectivity?
Being detached and objective allows one to approach a situation without being swayed by emotions or personal biases. It.

What does detachment yields objectivity mean?
Detachment means looking at things objectively. Detachment means aloof . It means we look at things by fact and we are not influence by our personal feelings and opinions .

What does detached objective mean?
impartial or objective; disinterested; unbiased: a detached judgment. not involved or concerned; aloof.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/detached

What is detachment? What is objectivity? Is the empirical study of ‘facts’ enough?
Descartes, Kant, Mill and others all emphasised the rational human who could detach themselves from the world, observing and calculating; absorbing the facts.
This idea of detachment characterises the approach of both the social and the natural sciences.
But what exactly does it mean?
That an observer can put their own feelings, imagination and biases to one side – to detach themselves from their subject matter - and rationally collect the facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH8U0CO4Iak

Nagel introduced the concept of an "Objective Self" as detached from one ordinary self.

What is most effective is when this detached "objective self" is imputed into a collective-of-objective-selves [inter-subjects or inter-subjectivity] i.e. within a Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
There are various human-based [subjects] FSR-FSKs, of which the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objective.

[Atla]

Some Q&A re Detached Objectivity:

What is detached objectivity?
Being detached and objective allows one to approach a situation without being swayed by emotions or personal biases. It.

What does detachment yields objectivity mean?
Detachment means looking at things objectively. Detachment means aloof . It means we look at things by fact and we are not influence by our personal feelings and opinions .

What does detached objective mean?
impartial or objective; disinterested; unbiased: a detached judgment. not involved or concerned; aloof.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/detached

What is detachment? What is objectivity? Is the empirical study of ‘facts’ enough?
Descartes, Kant, Mill and others all emphasised the rational human who could detach themselves from the world, observing and calculating; absorbing the facts.
This idea of detachment characterises the approach of both the social and the natural sciences.
But what exactly does it mean?
That an observer can put their own feelings, imagination and biases to one side – to detach themselves from their subject matter - and rationally collect the facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH8U0CO4Iak

Nagel introduced the concept of an "Objective Self" as detached from one ordinary self.

What is most effective is when this detached "objective self" is imputed into a collective-of-objective-selves [inter-subjects or inter-subjectivity] i.e. within a Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
There are various human-based [subjects] FSR-FSKs, of which the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objective.

And detached objective people can still come to opposing moral views, that's why morality is called subjective unlike science. One day you might get it.

[Iwannaplato]

What is detached objectivity?
Being detached and objective allows one to approach a situation without being swayed by emotions or personal biases. It.

One can be detached and utterly subjective.

In fact given that morals have to do with social interactions and social (and antisocial) behavior, being detached is a mixed bag.

Social relations are based on emotions and require interest in the well being of others.

You cannot simply have a logical argument why humans should thrive, for example. That argument must necessarily always have an emotional, interested component.

Which is one of the reasons many people are concerned, for example, about AI. It may well lack interest in humans and what humans value.

You don't want, for example, utterly detached people to take care of your children. You don't leave them in your home alone with your children.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is detached objectivity?
Being detached and objective allows one to approach a situation without being swayed by emotions or personal biases. It.

One can be detached and utterly subjective.

In fact given that morals have to do with social interactions and social (and antisocial) behavior, being detached is a mixed bag.

Social relations are based on emotions and require interest in the well being of others.

You cannot simply have a logical argument why humans should thrive, for example. That argument must necessarily always have an emotional, interested component.

Which is one of the reasons many people are concerned, for example, about AI. It may well lack interest in humans and what humans value.

You don't want, for example, utterly detached people to take care of your children. You don't leave them in your home alone with your children.

To topic, the above detachment is solely related to 'morality is objective' and nothing else.

'Being detached" means one must comply with certain conditions that qualify as 'objective'.
So detached is 'compliance with certain condition' to be objective.
As such, if one do not comply with the conditions that qualify as objective, one is vulnerable to be subjective.

In fact given that morals have to do with social interactions and social (and antisocial) behavior, being detached is a mixed bag.

Almost everything with humans involve social interactions, so morality is not something special in this case.

What Nagel meant by 'detachment' and 'objective' in this case when one deliberates on moral elements and principles within humanity, one must make the attempt to be detached from the natural inevitable personal attachments to understand that morality is objective.

But note, personal objectivity is not sufficient and it must be extended to collective-objectivity [intersubjectivity] as conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.

You don't want, for example, utterly detached people to take care of your children. You don't leave them in your home alone with your children.

This is off topic.
Re children, what we need is very morally competent [naturally morally driven] people to take care of children.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"And detached objective people can still come to opposing moral views, that's why morality is called subjective unlike science."
The above is oxymoronic.
Having opposing 'moral' views is either subjective [moral subjectivism] or relative [moral relativism] which contrasted with moral objectivity.

Moral objectivity per se means having one objective universal moral views on moral elements.

[Atla]

"And detached objective people can still come to opposing moral views, that's why morality is called subjective unlike science."
The above is oxymoronic.
Having opposing 'moral' views is either subjective [moral subjectivism] or relative [moral relativism] which contrasted with moral objectivity.

Moral objectivity per se means having one objective universal moral views on moral elements.

You neither understand what objective morality means nor what objective people are nor that you're the one proposing oxymorons.

[Iwannaplato]

To topic, the above detachment is solely related to 'morality is objective' and nothing else.

'Being detached" means one must comply with certain conditions that qualify as 'objective'.

It is focused on the emotional/perceptive state of the person doing something (researching, arguing, asserting, critiquing, experimenting, whatever). There is no need to do this. If their methodology/thinking is well justified and effective, it doesn't matter what their state of mind is.

So detached is 'compliance with certain condition' to be objective.

All you need to do is talk about whether whatever they are doing is well justified, rational, that there's solid evidence, etc. They could be utterly passionate about their opinion, but it doesn't matter.

Essentially talking about whether the person is detached or not is ad hominim, in the literal (gender specific) sense of 'to the man'. It's an unnecessary criterion.

In fact given that morals have to do with social interactions and social (and antisocial) behavior, being detached is a mixed bag.

Almost everything with humans involve social interactions, so morality is not something special in this case.

You're missing my point. My point was that it is even more ironic in the case of morals which are founded on non-detached interest in ourselves and other members of our species.

I am not criticizing morality for not being detached: of course it isn't.

I am pointing out that it is especially silly as a criterion GIVEN that morality is based on feelings of care about us and others.

It is precisely not detached.

This is off topic.
Re children, what we need is very morally competent [naturally morally driven] people to take care of children.

It wasn't off topic. It is an example to show that the criterion is misplaced. To be morally competent socially, especially when taking care of children, means one cares, is empathetic, and other appropriate emotional states. It's not like learning how to play chess well.

And let*s look at the specific quote I responded to....

What is detached objectivity?
Being detached and objective allows one to approach a situation without being swayed by emotions or personal biases.

Being detached AND objective.

These are clearly two different things. There's no reason one can't simply 'be objective'. If one is not detached, this can, yes, lead to problems. If one is detached, this can also lead to problems. Imagine science without the incredible passion to know. Imagine developing a morality without caring about people. What would the foundations be? Math? Why focus on humans at all? We could base all morality on how it benefits bacteria. But we don't. Why? Because we have emotional attachments to humans and vastly more passionately than we do about the thriving of bacteria. We're not disinterested, we're interested. We're not detached. We are attached, literally and figuratively, to the issue.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To topic, the above detachment is solely related to 'morality is objective' and nothing else.

'Being detached" means one must comply with certain conditions that qualify as 'objective'.

It is focused on the emotional/perceptive state of the person doing something (researching, arguing, asserting, critiquing, experimenting, whatever). There is no need to do this. If their methodology/thinking is well justified and effective, it doesn't matter what their state of mind is.

So detached is 'compliance with certain condition' to be objective.

All you need to do is talk about whether whatever they are doing is well justified, rational, that there's solid evidence, etc. They could be utterly passionate about their opinion, but it doesn't matter.

Essentially talking about whether the person is detached or not is ad hominim, in the literal (gender specific) sense of 'to the man'. It's an unnecessary criterion.

In fact given that morals have to do with social interactions and social (and antisocial) behavior, being detached is a mixed bag.

Almost everything with humans involve social interactions, so morality is not something special in this case.

You're missing my point. My point was that it is even more ironic in the case of morals which are founded on non-detached interest in ourselves and other members of our species.

I am not criticizing morality for not being detached: of course it isn't.

I am pointing out that it is especially silly as a criterion GIVEN that morality is based on feelings of care about us and others.

It is precisely not detached.

This is off topic.
Re children, what we need is very morally competent [naturally morally driven] people to take care of children.

It wasn't off topic. It is an example to show that the criterion is misplaced. To be morally competent socially, especially when taking care of children, means one cares, is empathetic, and other appropriate emotional states. It's not like learning how to play chess well.

And let*s look at the specific quote I responded to....

What is detached objectivity?
Being detached and objective allows one to approach a situation without being swayed by emotions or personal biases.

Being detached AND objective.

These are clearly two different things. There's no reason one can't simply 'be objective'. If one is not detached, this can, yes, lead to problems. If one is detached, this can also lead to problems. Imagine science without the incredible passion to know. Imagine developing a morality without caring about people. What would the foundations be? Math? Why focus on humans at all? We could base all morality on how it benefits bacteria. But we don't. Why? Because we have emotional attachments to humans and vastly more passionately than we do about the thriving of bacteria. We're not disinterested, we're interested. We're not detached. We are attached, literally and figuratively, to the issue.

Note the various meanings of 'detach';

• 1. not attached; separated:
  a detached ticket stub.
  
  2. having no wall in common with another building (opposed to attached):
  a detached house.
  
  3. impartial or objective; disinterested; unbiased:
  a detached judgment.
  
  4. not involved or concerned; aloof.

The relevant meaning for 'detach' [re Nagel's] to this topic is 3. impartial or objective.

Your above points seem to relate 'detach' to;
3. disinterested
4. not involved or concerned; aloof.

Being detached AND objective.
These are clearly two different things. There's no reason one can't simply 'be objective'. If one is not detached, this can, yes, lead to problems. If one is detached, this can also lead to problems.
Imagine science without the incredible passion to know.
Imagine developing a morality without caring about people.
What would the foundations be? Math?

According to the meanings above that is relevant to topic,
being detached and being objective is synonymous.

The point with scientific exploration is there are two elements here;
1. Obviously there is an inherent and forceful passion to know which is active in SOME [it is dormant in the majority].
2. However, within the process to know and arrive at scientific conclusions one [& all involved] must be objective within a specific methodology [FSK] that is objective.

It is the same with the process to establish moral principles that one [& all involved] must be objective [detached as defined above] within a specific methodology [morality-proper-FSK] that is objective.
One of the principle within the morality-proper-FSK [which is detached & objective] must be the development of empathy [positive] to the highest optimality.
Thus the optimal "caring for people" is inherent within the the objective development [unfolding] of morality.

So, the utmost caring for people from empathy should be objective [detached].

The other extreme is where empathy is attached and subjective, i.e. blind which is to the detriment to the individual[s] and humanity. Note the current case of so many people extending their empathy [attached, subjective & blind] to Hamas as "victims".

Get my point?