Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by BigMike »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:17 am
BigMike wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:29 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:10 am Here are three arguments for moral objectivity.

1
Action X is morally right and action Y is morally wrong (as defined).
Humans are programmed/could be genetically manipulated/can be encouraged to do X and not to do Y.
Therefore, there are moral facts about human nature, and morality is objective.

[...]

Those who peddle these arguments seem to be convinced by them. But I hope everyone else can see how silly they are.
Could it not be said that humans and other mammals have genes that instruct them to ensure the survival of their offspring? And if that's the case, isn't one's desire or sense of duty to make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy also genetically programmed in us? If so, is it too much of a stretch to say that there is a universal moral principle that says we should help people who can't take care of themselves meet their basic needs, as long as doing so doesn't put our own basic needs at risk? And lastly, if that's the case, doesn't that show moral objectivity?
I've helped you out with some colour coding.
The stuff in red is factual statememts about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)
The stuff in blue is normative evaluation (where on man's meat is another's poison... ought and ought not, desirable versus ugly, that sort of stuff)

That means that the meagre bit of black text between the two is an attempt to bring about the copulation of propositions of the is sort the ought sort without the introduction of any additional features of either that can explain this mysterious conversion of types let alone how the one can act as a foundation for the other.

The moves that Hume observed in this game always border on imperceptible, the whole point of the is ought problem (and if you get this particular point, we have 20 idiots who need assistance, so weight in) is that imperceptible movement between is and ought is sleight of hand, if it can be done, then the is ought thing should be bridged openly and explicitly using some novel logical connection between facts and values.
You seem to agree that there is a moral duty to "make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy" genetically programmed in us. In fact, you said it was "factual statements about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)".
That brings up the question of how close our closest relatives have to be for your assessment to be valid. You are implying that distant relatives don't deserve moral support as much, which has some genetic basis. But when does that moral principle stop being applicable, not even a little bit?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:41 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:17 am
BigMike wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:29 pm

Could it not be said that humans and other mammals have genes that instruct them to ensure the survival of their offspring? And if that's the case, isn't one's desire or sense of duty to make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy also genetically programmed in us? If so, is it too much of a stretch to say that there is a universal moral principle that says we should help people who can't take care of themselves meet their basic needs, as long as doing so doesn't put our own basic needs at risk? And lastly, if that's the case, doesn't that show moral objectivity?
I've helped you out with some colour coding.
The stuff in red is factual statememts about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)
The stuff in blue is normative evaluation (where on man's meat is another's poison... ought and ought not, desirable versus ugly, that sort of stuff)

That means that the meagre bit of black text between the two is an attempt to bring about the copulation of propositions of the is sort the ought sort without the introduction of any additional features of either that can explain this mysterious conversion of types let alone how the one can act as a foundation for the other.

The moves that Hume observed in this game always border on imperceptible, the whole point of the is ought problem (and if you get this particular point, we have 20 idiots who need assistance, so weight in) is that imperceptible movement between is and ought is sleight of hand, if it can be done, then the is ought thing should be bridged openly and explicitly using some novel logical connection between facts and values.
You seem to agree that there is a moral duty to "make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy" genetically programmed in us. In fact, you said it was "factual statements about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)".
That brings up the question of how close our closest relatives have to be for your assessment to be valid. You are implying that distant relatives don't deserve moral support as much, which has some genetic basis. But when does that moral principle stop being applicable, not even a little bit?
No I'm afraid read stuff into that which is not present. If there's an observable tendency among humans to prefer the wellbeing* of their own family/group to that of other groups or families, this in itself is a morally neutral fact. It you choose to layer on a bunch of normative assumption that's not you measuring or dicovering any matter of fact. You might describe it as a programmed sense of duty, but the progeramming doesn't conform to any ultimate moral fact so there's nothing down that rabbit hole except holes.


* but as you must inflict a normative evaluation of what "wellbeing" is even to manage this observation you will probably get yourself into difficulty even at this early stage.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

BigMike wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:29 pm Could it not be said that humans and other mammals have genes that instruct them to ensure the survival of their offspring?
And if that's the case, isn't one's desire or sense of duty to make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy also genetically programmed in us?

If so, is it too much of a stretch to say that there is a universal moral principle that says we should help people who can't take care of themselves meet their basic needs, as long as doing so doesn't put our own basic needs at risk? And lastly, if that's the case, doesn't that show moral objectivity?
You got the point there with "objectivity", i.e. some universal principle that drive all humans to ensure the survival of their offsprings based on empirical evidences which are verifiable and justifiable, thus independent of any individual's beliefs, opinions or judgments.

But is the above Objectivity related to 'Morality'?
At present the term 'morality' is a VERY loose term. In this case you need to be very precise with the definition of 'what is morality'.

For one thing, anything that has a 'should' 'ought' 'must' or the likes that is enforced or imposed upon individuals via laws, rules, customs, divine commands, expectations by others or anything that is authoritative, culminating in right or wrong, is not within the ambit of morality-proper.

What is morality-proper is related to natural impulses [re moral elements as defined] and activated spontaneously from within the individuals themselves without coercions from external elements.

But the "universal principle that drive all humans to ensure the survival of their offsprings" is not directly a moral element per se. Morality-proper will exclude even Virtues and those involving the general well being of the individuals.

There is a specific set of moral elements per se, of which the most glaring examples are killing of another human, slavery, rape, extreme violence, etc. in various degrees.

Point is there is an innate and inherent 'program' in terms of a potential that inhibit or rather an ought-not-ness that inhibit humans from killing another human.
In a way the genes are involved but it is more of an active algorithm that involved a set of genes and other factors that generate the potential. This is like a Computer Software in a working Computer which is objective, note the thread below;

Re Morality: Is a Software Program Objectively Real?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38815

Since the above inherent program and potential i.e. moral element of an ought-not-ness that humans are not to kill another human, is objective,
therefore morality in this sense is objective.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:36 pm What to do when your argument is exposed as trash?

Deny the importance of arguments. Simples.
On the one hand you want to pretend that "wrongness" lacks veracity with respect to murder.
On the other hand you want to pretend that "trashness" and "importance" hold veracity with respect to arguments.

It's no surprise that subjective moralists don't see double standards as objectively wrong.

It has me thinking. Is your stupidity subjective or objective?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:41 am
BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:41 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:17 am
I've helped you out with some colour coding.
The stuff in red is factual statememts about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)
The stuff in blue is normative evaluation (where on man's meat is another's poison... ought and ought not, desirable versus ugly, that sort of stuff)

That means that the meagre bit of black text between the two is an attempt to bring about the copulation of propositions of the is sort the ought sort without the introduction of any additional features of either that can explain this mysterious conversion of types let alone how the one can act as a foundation for the other.

The moves that Hume observed in this game always border on imperceptible, the whole point of the is ought problem (and if you get this particular point, we have 20 idiots who need assistance, so weight in) is that imperceptible movement between is and ought is sleight of hand, if it can be done, then the is ought thing should be bridged openly and explicitly using some novel logical connection between facts and values.
You seem to agree that there is a moral duty to "make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy" genetically programmed in us. In fact, you said it was "factual statements about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)".
That brings up the question of how close our closest relatives have to be for your assessment to be valid. You are implying that distant relatives don't deserve moral support as much, which has some genetic basis. But when does that moral principle stop being applicable, not even a little bit?
No I'm afraid read stuff into that which is not present. If there's an observable tendency among humans to prefer the wellbeing* of their own family/group to that of other groups or families, this in itself is a morally neutral fact. It you choose to layer on a bunch of normative assumption that's not you measuring or dicovering any matter of fact. You might describe it as a programmed sense of duty, but the progeramming doesn't conform to any ultimate moral fact so there's nothing down that rabbit hole except holes.


* but as you must inflict a normative evaluation of what "wellbeing" is even to manage this observation you will probably get yourself into difficulty even at this early stage.
What I'm about to say doesn't resolve the debate here and in other threads. But as I notice my interest in the topic waning, I thought that in practical terms, 'out there' in real life, one can black box the objectivity issue - or, really, most of us probably do - and focus on alliances and consequences, with a dash of what at least looks like deontological positions thrown in.
So, when an objectivist meets an anti-realist, the focus is on what they want not the justification or ontology of their positions. You skip over why the other person is for policy X and just agree or not. Of course one can engage in trying to convince others by pointing out consequences and so on of policies and laws and behavior.
Perhaps both sides put too much weight on the foundations of positions. I know anti-realists who, perhaps ironically, think that objectivists are causing all the problems. I don't think that holds, except for the fact that they are in the majority. But in the end the antirealists are pushing for the world they want also, so it's all people pushing for what they want. And the moral objectivists think the antirealists are causing the problems, when they are thinking about moral anti-realists, since they are not focusing on the moral objectivists they hate because those guys have different positions on what is objectively morally bad and good.

In one way I am asking, does it matter`?
And in another, how?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:41 am
BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:41 am

You seem to agree that there is a moral duty to "make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy" genetically programmed in us. In fact, you said it was "factual statements about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)".
That brings up the question of how close our closest relatives have to be for your assessment to be valid. You are implying that distant relatives don't deserve moral support as much, which has some genetic basis. But when does that moral principle stop being applicable, not even a little bit?
No I'm afraid read stuff into that which is not present. If there's an observable tendency among humans to prefer the wellbeing* of their own family/group to that of other groups or families, this in itself is a morally neutral fact. It you choose to layer on a bunch of normative assumption that's not you measuring or dicovering any matter of fact. You might describe it as a programmed sense of duty, but the progeramming doesn't conform to any ultimate moral fact so there's nothing down that rabbit hole except holes.


* but as you must inflict a normative evaluation of what "wellbeing" is even to manage this observation you will probably get yourself into difficulty even at this early stage.
What I'm about to say doesn't resolve the debate here and in other threads. But as I notice my interest in the topic waning, I thought that in practical terms, 'out there' in real life, one can black box the objectivity issue - or, really, most of us probably do - and focus on alliances and consequences, with a dash of what at least looks like deontological positions thrown in.
So, when an objectivist meets an anti-realist, the focus is on what they want not the justification or ontology of their positions. You skip over why the other person is for policy X and just agree or not. Of course one can engage in trying to convince others by pointing out consequences and so on of policies and laws and behavior.
Perhaps both sides put too much weight on the foundations of positions. I know anti-realists who, perhaps ironically, think that objectivists are causing all the problems. I don't think that holds, except for the fact that they are in the majority. But in the end the antirealists are pushing for the world they want also, so it's all people pushing for what they want. And the moral objectivists think the antirealists are causing the problems, when they are thinking about moral anti-realists, since they are not focusing on the moral objectivists they hate because those guys have different positions on what is objectively morally bad and good.

In one way I am asking, does it matter`?
And in another, how?
Does ANY 'thing' REALLY matter just as long as 'we' come to an agreement and an acceptance of what is GOOD and Right, and what is BAD and Wrong, for EVERY one?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:41 am
No I'm afraid read stuff into that which is not present. If there's an observable tendency among humans to prefer the wellbeing* of their own family/group to that of other groups or families, this in itself is a morally neutral fact. It you choose to layer on a bunch of normative assumption that's not you measuring or dicovering any matter of fact. You might describe it as a programmed sense of duty, but the progeramming doesn't conform to any ultimate moral fact so there's nothing down that rabbit hole except holes.


* but as you must inflict a normative evaluation of what "wellbeing" is even to manage this observation you will probably get yourself into difficulty even at this early stage.
What I'm about to say doesn't resolve the debate here and in other threads. But as I notice my interest in the topic waning, I thought that in practical terms, 'out there' in real life, one can black box the objectivity issue - or, really, most of us probably do - and focus on alliances and consequences, with a dash of what at least looks like deontological positions thrown in.
So, when an objectivist meets an anti-realist, the focus is on what they want not the justification or ontology of their positions. You skip over why the other person is for policy X and just agree or not. Of course one can engage in trying to convince others by pointing out consequences and so on of policies and laws and behavior.
Perhaps both sides put too much weight on the foundations of positions. I know anti-realists who, perhaps ironically, think that objectivists are causing all the problems. I don't think that holds, except for the fact that they are in the majority. But in the end the antirealists are pushing for the world they want also, so it's all people pushing for what they want. And the moral objectivists think the antirealists are causing the problems, when they are thinking about moral anti-realists, since they are not focusing on the moral objectivists they hate because those guys have different positions on what is objectively morally bad and good.

In one way I am asking, does it matter`?
And in another, how?
Does ANY 'thing' REALLY matter just as long as 'we' come to an agreement and an acceptance of what is GOOD and Right, and what is BAD and Wrong, for EVERY one?
Sometimes people who do things I prefer (or to put it in objectivist terms 'who do the right thing') can bring down the emotional warmth of a room just via their vibe. It may be some sort of subtle doing on their part, but it sure seems like being rather than doing. A kind of stench that comes off their person. Their actions, their acceptance of what one should do, may be aligned with my preferences, but their vibe feels destructive to me. And they can be objectivists or moral antirealists or have similar positions on politics and human interaction as me or have completely different ones. It seems to be at a level of essence.

So, I generally agree, though I wouldn't word it in those terms, but there is a huge proviso mentioned by me in the previous paragraph.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by BigMike »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:41 am
BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:41 am

You seem to agree that there is a moral duty to "make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy" genetically programmed in us. In fact, you said it was "factual statements about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)".
That brings up the question of how close our closest relatives have to be for your assessment to be valid. You are implying that distant relatives don't deserve moral support as much, which has some genetic basis. But when does that moral principle stop being applicable, not even a little bit?
No I'm afraid read stuff into that which is not present. If there's an observable tendency among humans to prefer the wellbeing* of their own family/group to that of other groups or families, this in itself is a morally neutral fact. It you choose to layer on a bunch of normative assumption that's not you measuring or dicovering any matter of fact. You might describe it as a programmed sense of duty, but the progeramming doesn't conform to any ultimate moral fact so there's nothing down that rabbit hole except holes.


* but as you must inflict a normative evaluation of what "wellbeing" is even to manage this observation you will probably get yourself into difficulty even at this early stage.
What I'm about to say doesn't resolve the debate here and in other threads. But as I notice my interest in the topic waning, I thought that in practical terms, 'out there' in real life, one can black box the objectivity issue - or, really, most of us probably do - and focus on alliances and consequences, with a dash of what at least looks like deontological positions thrown in.
So, when an objectivist meets an anti-realist, the focus is on what they want not the justification or ontology of their positions. You skip over why the other person is for policy X and just agree or not. Of course one can engage in trying to convince others by pointing out consequences and so on of policies and laws and behavior.
Perhaps both sides put too much weight on the foundations of positions. I know anti-realists who, perhaps ironically, think that objectivists are causing all the problems. I don't think that holds, except for the fact that they are in the majority. But in the end the antirealists are pushing for the world they want also, so it's all people pushing for what they want. And the moral objectivists think the antirealists are causing the problems, when they are thinking about moral anti-realists, since they are not focusing on the moral objectivists they hate because those guys have different positions on what is objectively morally bad and good.

In one way I am asking, does it matter`?
And in another, how?
I get that your "interest in the topic is waning". Boy, do I! So much so that I don't have the energy to answer comments from people like FlashDangerpants above.

I just want to say that since free will is an illusion, so is moral responsibility. How can someone be responsible for their action if they have no control over their thoughts or actions?

Still, people have a medial prefrontal cortex, which is a part of the brain that helps them act in socially appropriate ways. That is no illusion.

If your sister's daughter needs a new kidney to stay alive and you are a perfect match as a potential donor, you give her one of yours. Whether you think that's a moral act or something your brain makes you do doesn't matter to me. That is a play on words.

What matters to me, and what cannot be disputed, is that humans have a capacity to love others and demonstrate that love in ways that are not always in their narrow best interests. This is the only type of human behavior that even remotely resembles the concept of morality. It is innate to our brains.

Although I reject moral responsibility, as I did above, I do not reject the existence of love for others. And that love sometimes makes us do the most wonderful things, moral or not.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:29 am I get that your "interest in the topic is waning". Boy, do I! So much so that I don't have the energy to answer comments from people like FlashDangerpants above.

I just want to say that since free will is an illusion, so is moral responsibility. How can someone be responsible for their action if they have no control over their thoughts or actions?
Well, that debate also, in practical terms, it seems to me can also be blackboxed. But...a little train of etymology
responsible (adj.)
"accountable for one's actions, answerable"
accountable (adj.)
"answerable," literally "liable to be called to account,"
liable (adj.)
mid-15c., "bound or obliged by law,"
We hold people accountable for their actions. That's just practical. We don't have to take a stand on whether they could have done something else or not. They are the person who did this and making them legally liable doesn't need to bind us to an ontological position.
Still, people have a medial prefrontal cortex, which is a part of the brain that helps them act in socially appropriate ways. That is no illusion.

If your sister's daughter needs a new kidney to stay alive and you are a perfect match as a potential donor, you give her one of yours. Whether you think that's a moral act or something your brain makes you do doesn't matter to me. That is a play on words.
I'd guess that the limbic system is tied in closely, otherwise we wouldn't care about the understanding that the other is suffering. MPC acting as a kind of interpretive part of the sensing of others, the limbic system giving their suffering weight.
What matters to me, and what cannot be disputed, is that humans have a capacity to love others and demonstrate that love in ways that are not always in their narrow best interests. This is the only type of human behavior that even remotely resembles the concept of morality. It is innate to our brains.
Sure.
Although I reject moral responsibility, as I did above, I do not reject the existence of love for others. And that love sometimes makes us do the most wonderful things, moral or not.
I dunno what gains we get from calling some people's attitudes and actions wonderful or not wonderful and calling some people's actions and attitudes morally irresponsible or morally responsible. That person is the one who has this or that attitude and performs this or that action or did on some occasion.

I might not think of my toaster that always burns my toast as morally responsible but that's one bad toaster and in any practical terms I hold it responsible for burning my toast. It wasn't my blender that did it. And it will get put in the prison of the recycling bin. And I might hold the company that made the defective toaster responsible for shoddy production. Even if there are even more distant causes that made them the type of cutting corner producers that make bad products. They are accountable and liable for what they did and didn't do.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:29 am I just want to say that since free will is an illusion, so is moral responsibility. How can someone be responsible for their action if they have no control over their thoughts or actions?
Please tell me you recognize your question as rhetorical.

How can someone be held responsible for their actions if they have no control over your thoughts or actions?
Well people have no control over their thoughts and actions - they are programmed to hold others morally responsible.

Your position is not tennable unless you are holding onto some double standard, such as "Acts of wrongdoing are not the product of free will; but acts of seeking responsibility are."
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by BigMike »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:47 amI dunno what gains we get from calling some people's attitudes and actions wonderful or not wonderful and calling some people's actions and attitudes morally irresponsible or morally responsible. That person is the one who has this or that attitude and performs this or that action or did on some occasion.
What we call it doesn't matter that much. I have argued elsewhere that it doesn't make sense to hold people morally responsible for their actions, or to put all the blame on one person. What about all the people who made people do the things they did?

Even though the United States Supreme Court thinks it is fair to hold people legally responsible for their actions, that doesn't mean it is. Similarly, even though people think it is fair to hold people morally responsible for their actions, that doesn't mean it is.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:05 am Even though the United States Supreme Court thinks it is fair to hold people legally responsible for their actions, that doesn't mean it is.
And it doesn't mean it isn't fair.

All that's left for you to do is to tacitly agree (and do nothing); or disagree (and try to change the law).
BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:05 am Similarly, even though people think it is fair to hold people morally responsible for their actions, that doesn't mean it is.
And it doesn't mean it isn't fair.

All that's left for you to do is to tacitly agree (and do nothing); or disagree (and try to change the moral status quo).

Be the change you want to see in the world etc. etc.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:08 am
Age wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:53 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:37 am What I'm about to say doesn't resolve the debate here and in other threads. But as I notice my interest in the topic waning, I thought that in practical terms, 'out there' in real life, one can black box the objectivity issue - or, really, most of us probably do - and focus on alliances and consequences, with a dash of what at least looks like deontological positions thrown in.
So, when an objectivist meets an anti-realist, the focus is on what they want not the justification or ontology of their positions. You skip over why the other person is for policy X and just agree or not. Of course one can engage in trying to convince others by pointing out consequences and so on of policies and laws and behavior.
Perhaps both sides put too much weight on the foundations of positions. I know anti-realists who, perhaps ironically, think that objectivists are causing all the problems. I don't think that holds, except for the fact that they are in the majority. But in the end the antirealists are pushing for the world they want also, so it's all people pushing for what they want. And the moral objectivists think the antirealists are causing the problems, when they are thinking about moral anti-realists, since they are not focusing on the moral objectivists they hate because those guys have different positions on what is objectively morally bad and good.

In one way I am asking, does it matter`?
And in another, how?
Does ANY 'thing' REALLY matter just as long as 'we' come to an agreement and an acceptance of what is GOOD and Right, and what is BAD and Wrong, for EVERY one?
Sometimes people who do things I prefer (or to put it in objectivist terms 'who do the right thing') can bring down the emotional warmth of a room just via their vibe.
Well considering the Fact that ALL people 'do the right thing', then, OBVIOUSLY, sometimes those people can bring down the so-called emotional warmth' of a room just via their so-called 'vibe'.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:08 am It may be some sort of subtle doing on their part, but it sure seems like being rather than doing. A kind of stench that comes off their person. Their actions, their acceptance of what one should do, may be aligned with my preferences, but their vibe feels destructive to me. And they can be objectivists or moral antirealists or have similar positions on politics and human interaction as me or have completely different ones. It seems to be at a level of essence.

So, I generally agree, though I wouldn't word it in those terms, but there is a huge proviso mentioned by me in the previous paragraph.
Okay.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:41 am
BigMike wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 12:41 am

You seem to agree that there is a moral duty to "make sure our closest relatives survive and are healthy" genetically programmed in us. In fact, you said it was "factual statements about the state of the world (observable, demonstrable... is or is not sort of stuff)".
That brings up the question of how close our closest relatives have to be for your assessment to be valid. You are implying that distant relatives don't deserve moral support as much, which has some genetic basis. But when does that moral principle stop being applicable, not even a little bit?
No I'm afraid read stuff into that which is not present. If there's an observable tendency among humans to prefer the wellbeing* of their own family/group to that of other groups or families, this in itself is a morally neutral fact. It you choose to layer on a bunch of normative assumption that's not you measuring or dicovering any matter of fact. You might describe it as a programmed sense of duty, but the progeramming doesn't conform to any ultimate moral fact so there's nothing down that rabbit hole except holes.


* but as you must inflict a normative evaluation of what "wellbeing" is even to manage this observation you will probably get yourself into difficulty even at this early stage.
What I'm about to say doesn't resolve the debate here and in other threads. But as I notice my interest in the topic waning, I thought that in practical terms, 'out there' in real life, one can black box the objectivity issue - or, really, most of us probably do - and focus on alliances and consequences, with a dash of what at least looks like deontological positions thrown in.
So, when an objectivist meets an anti-realist, the focus is on what they want not the justification or ontology of their positions. You skip over why the other person is for policy X and just agree or not. Of course one can engage in trying to convince others by pointing out consequences and so on of policies and laws and behavior.
Perhaps both sides put too much weight on the foundations of positions. I know anti-realists who, perhaps ironically, think that objectivists are causing all the problems. I don't think that holds, except for the fact that they are in the majority. But in the end the antirealists are pushing for the world they want also, so it's all people pushing for what they want. And the moral objectivists think the antirealists are causing the problems, when they are thinking about moral anti-realists, since they are not focusing on the moral objectivists they hate because those guys have different positions on what is objectively morally bad and good.

In one way I am asking, does it matter`?
And in another, how?
It's a question of the presumed status of any particular moral statement, and it has a practical implications that do matter every time that status has practical implications.

There is no more real life debate between realists and antirealists in this matter than ther is for any other, that meta shit is not relevant in real life. But under one assumption I can decide thagt the contents of your head are categorically mistaken and that I don't need to take your views into account. Under the other, I cannot simply overrule you, there is a requirement on my part to persuade.

The tragedy of this forum, and I assume every other, is that nobody ever gets beyond this basic crap. No better conversation can be had here than this awful thread.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by attofishpi »

Acts of morality are always subjective.
Acts of immorality CAN be objective.
Post Reply