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 »

Morality is distinguishing between good and bad thoughts, decisions, and actions. It can be a person's set of rules or principles from their religion, culture, or philosophy, or it can be a rule they think everyone should follow.

I think that morality is one of those concepts that we, driven by the desire to be better than the rest, tend to elevate to such moral heights that it is out of reach, at least consistently. You could even say it has an ethereal, spiritual quality. Unfortunately, it also often involves self-deception, lying, or being dishonest, like giving the impression that you are more compassionate, generous, and virtuous than you really are. This immoral conduct is employed to gain unfair advantages. It is pretty paradoxical and hypocritical.

Morality seems to be at the heart of much of the dispute about free will. Without free will, one can not be held morally responsible for one's actions. Since I reject free will, I believe it is advantageous to descend from the highest rungs on the ladder of moralism to the more stable ground below.

Most of us agree that we all have specific basic needs. Abraham Maslow tried to explain these needs, and he did a pretty good job of it, even though he might not have been right in every way. Further research is required. Unmet needs cause physical or mental illness; if they continue to go unmet, they can lead to death. Mammals also feel the urge to provide for their young, who depend on them for survival for some time after birth. So, parents also take care of their children's needs because their species would die out if they didn't. Everything we do is driven by our natural desire to meet these basic needs.

This suggests a less lofty and more achievable definition of morality: "Do not prevent others from achieving their own needs through your actions; instead, help those who are unable to meet their basic needs so long as it does not interfere with your own basic needs."
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:05 am So, parents also take care of their children's needs because their species would die out if they didn't. Everything we do is driven by our natural desire to meet these basic needs.

This suggests a less lofty and more achievable definition of morality: "Do not prevent others from achieving their own needs through your actions; instead, help those who are unable to meet their basic needs so long as it does not interfere with your own basic needs."
We also take care of people not genetically related to us, including members of other species. What has worked, say, to get certain genes through natural selection, need not mean that we desire only what gets us through natural selection. IOW feeling empathy may lead to group cohesion and survival, but it remains empathy which can be broadly applied. Other mammals, even, will save creatures from other species on occasion. There's a kind of cart before the horse thing or category error in thinking that because something got naturally selected for then it is all about survival itself or the propagation of the species. What gets selected for may have many side effects, including what it did for survival. But it isn't FOR survival, there is no teleology. It is what it is. And empathy is one of the facets of being human, in and of itself. It isn't FOR anything. It just is. That it happened to help us (so far) survive does not mean that it IS about survival or propagation.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:47 am
We also take care of people not genetically related to us, including members of other species. What has worked, say, to get certain genes through natural selection, need not mean that we desire only what gets us through natural selection. IOW feeling empathy may lead to group cohesion and survival, but it remains empathy which can be broadly applied. Other mammals, even, will save creatures from other species on occasion. There's a kind of cart before the horse thing or category error in thinking that because something got naturally selected for then it is all about survival itself or the propagation of the species. What gets selected for may have many side effects, including what it did for survival. But it isn't FOR survival, there is no teleology. It is what it is. And empathy is one of the facets of being human, in and of itself. It isn't FOR anything. It just is. That it happened to help us (so far) survive does not mean that it IS about survival or propagation.
I think that's right - and nicely put, as usual. And the 'there is no teleology' point is very important.

I'd also distinguish between explanations - often factual ones - for why we've developed moral values and codes - and the nature and function of the moral assertions that express those values. For example:

Premise: Empathy has both survival advantages and other effects.
Conclusion: Therefore, feeling and acting empathetically is morally right.

This is a non sequitur, because the premise makes no moral claim, so the conclusion doesn't follow. A moral assertion stands alone, or follows from another moral assertion, which also stands alone - and so on. Facts about nature, including the human condition, have no moral entailment.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by BigMike »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:47 am
BigMike wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:05 am So, parents also take care of their children's needs because their species would die out if they didn't. Everything we do is driven by our natural desire to meet these basic needs.

This suggests a less lofty and more achievable definition of morality: "Do not prevent others from achieving their own needs through your actions; instead, help those who are unable to meet their basic needs so long as it does not interfere with your own basic needs."
We also take care of people not genetically related to us, including members of other species. What has worked, say, to get certain genes through natural selection, need not mean that we desire only what gets us through natural selection. IOW feeling empathy may lead to group cohesion and survival, but it remains empathy which can be broadly applied. Other mammals, even, will save creatures from other species on occasion. There's a kind of cart before the horse thing or category error in thinking that because something got naturally selected for then it is all about survival itself or the propagation of the species. What gets selected for may have many side effects, including what it did for survival. But it isn't FOR survival, there is no teleology. It is what it is. And empathy is one of the facets of being human, in and of itself. It isn't FOR anything. It just is. That it happened to help us (so far) survive does not mean that it IS about survival or propagation.
I don't have any big problems with that. I was just trying to describe what morality is at its bottom level. The things you mention are, to some extent, inferences based on that perception (of people having needs). I think you're starting to move up the moral ladder, which is fine as long as we don't overreach by trying too hard to look better than we are and thereby making unreasonable demands of each other.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:40 am I'd also distinguish between explanations - often factual ones - for why we've developed moral values and codes - and the nature and function of the moral assertions that express those values. For example:

Premise: Empathy has both survival advantages and other effects.
Conclusion: Therefore, feeling and acting empathetically is morally right.
Right. We can draw the conclusion that one may not be an appreciated member of sociey without empathy, the practical consequences.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:03 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:56 am

Take away social reality and what remains is biological reality including need for the individual to survive in any given environment.
The biological "reality" exists within the social "reality".

Everything you know about biology you learned from society.
You are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
You are confused about who's confused. Only "life" (you!) distinguish between life and non-life, biology and non-biology.
If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:40 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:47 am
We also take care of people not genetically related to us, including members of other species. What has worked, say, to get certain genes through natural selection, need not mean that we desire only what gets us through natural selection. IOW feeling empathy may lead to group cohesion and survival, but it remains empathy which can be broadly applied. Other mammals, even, will save creatures from other species on occasion. There's a kind of cart before the horse thing or category error in thinking that because something got naturally selected for then it is all about survival itself or the propagation of the species. What gets selected for may have many side effects, including what it did for survival. But it isn't FOR survival, there is no teleology. It is what it is. And empathy is one of the facets of being human, in and of itself. It isn't FOR anything. It just is. That it happened to help us (so far) survive does not mean that it IS about survival or propagation.
I think that's right - and nicely put, as usual. And the 'there is no teleology' point is very important.

I'd also distinguish between explanations - often factual ones - for why we've developed moral values and codes - and the nature and function of the moral assertions that express those values. For example:

Premise: Empathy has both survival advantages and other effects.
Conclusion: Therefore, feeling and acting empathetically is morally right.

This is a non sequitur, because the premise makes no moral claim, so the conclusion doesn't follow. A moral assertion stands alone, or follows from another moral assertion, which also stands alone - and so on. Facts about nature, including the human condition, have no moral entailment.
The usual confusion of the sophist...

The purpose of a system is what it does - POSIWID.

From this perspective we can skip all the nonsense about teleology, explanations, premises, conclusions, facts, subjectivity and objectivity.

Either some aspects of what we DO as humans amounts to a moral and immoral phenomena ; or morality doesn't even exist.
If some aspects of what we DO as humans amounts to a moral and immoral phenomena; then morality is objective. Because any consequential action, by any object in the universe (e.g a human!) is objective.

Attempting to arrive at objective morality from an individual frame of reference is idiotic - there's no morality in the context of me. There is only morality in the context of us.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:03 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:56 am

Take away social reality and what remains is biological reality including need for the individual to survive in any given environment.
The biological "reality" exists within the social "reality".

Everything you know about biology you learned from society.
You are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
Yes, biology and society are different categories.

Biology includes both theory of living things and living things, whereas society is a means by which living things stay alive.

I learned about society and biology from society. I learned that biology is all about all living things and that society is a fact about some living things.

"Everything I learned about biology I learned from society" said Skepdick.
This is true but trivial because everything, barring Chomsky stuff, I learned socially.

I learned from society that some of my learning is less coherent. Biologically cognitive dissonance troubles me and biologically rightly so , because biologically I need to plan for tomorrow. The need for morality is subjective as it's biologically necessary to live in a society. Moral codes are objective socially- constructed artefacts. Moral codes are therefore subsumed under society which itself is subsumed under biology.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:47 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:03 am
The biological "reality" exists within the social "reality".

Everything you know about biology you learned from society.
You are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
Yes, biology and society are different categories.

Biology includes both theory of living things and living things, whereas society is a means by which living things stay alive.

I learned about society and biology from society. I learned that biology is all about all living things and that society is a fact about some living things.

"Everything I learned about biology I learned from society" said Skepdick.
This is true but trivial because everything, barring Chomsky stuff, I learned socially.

I learned from society that some of my learning is less coherent. Biologically cognitive dissonance troubles me and biologically rightly so , because biologically I need to plan for tomorrow. The need for morality is subjective as it's biologically necessary to live in a society. Moral codes are objective socially- constructed artefacts. Moral codes are therefore subsumed under society which itself is subsumed under biology.
Belinda,

OUTSTANDING!!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:36 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:03 am
The biological "reality" exists within the social "reality".

Everything you know about biology you learned from society.
You are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
You are confused about who's confused. Only "life" (you!) distinguish between life and non-life, biology and non-biology.
If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman

Yes. But biology is a more useful heuristic than "nature does not know it" which though true is not conducive to any ethics.

Biology is a deterministic and therefore ethical stance.

Skepdick wrote elsewhere that I learned about biology from society. This is true of biology as an intellectual discipline, a set of concepts, a narrative. 'Biology' can also refer to the nature of living things as things that experience. That includes Descartes' error, so subtract "things" and what remains is experience itself. Experience sans subject of experience is what exists and is the container of all other concepts including the concept of biology and the concept of nature which does not know.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:27 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:36 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 am

You are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
You are confused about who's confused. Only "life" (you!) distinguish between life and non-life, biology and non-biology.
If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! --Richard Feynman

Yes. But biology is a more useful heuristic than "nature does not know it" which though true is not conducive to any ethics.

Biology is a deterministic and therefore ethical stance.

Skepdick wrote elsewhere that I learned about biology from society. This is true of biology as an intellectual discipline, a set of concepts, a narrative. 'Biology' can also refer to the nature of living things as things that experience. That includes Descartes' error, so subtract "things" and what remains is experience itself. Experience sans subject of experience is what exists and is the container of all other concepts including the concept of biology and the concept of nature which does not know.
The point is that "biology", "chemistry", "physics", "ethics" etc, etc, etc are just categories and level of abstraction by which we organise our own knowledge.
And so for the purpose of ethics "Biology" may or may not be as useful a heuristic as "knowledge" as a whole (including ethics itself).

Far too much time is wasted bickering over taxonomy, semantics and metaphysics. That sort of dialogue is not ethically-pragmatic.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:16 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:27 am
Skepdick wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:36 pm
You are confused about who's confused. Only "life" (you!) distinguish between life and non-life, biology and non-biology.


Yes. But biology is a more useful heuristic than "nature does not know it" which though true is not conducive to any ethics.

Biology is a deterministic and therefore ethical stance.

Skepdick wrote elsewhere that I learned about biology from society. This is true of biology as an intellectual discipline, a set of concepts, a narrative. 'Biology' can also refer to the nature of living things as things that experience. That includes Descartes' error, so subtract "things" and what remains is experience itself. Experience sans subject of experience is what exists and is the container of all other concepts including the concept of biology and the concept of nature which does not know.
The point is that "biology", "chemistry", "physics", "ethics" etc, etc, etc are just categories and level of abstraction by which we organise our own knowledge.
And so for the purpose of ethics "Biology" may or may not be as useful a heuristic as "knowledge" as a whole (including ethics itself).

Far too much time is wasted bickering over taxonomy, semantics and metaphysics. That sort of dialogue is not ethically-pragmatic.

Isn't that the sort of dialogue you are engaging in? Anyway I disagree with your last claim.

Knowledge, like the concept of biology and all other other concepts, also is experience.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:26 am Isn't that the sort of dialogue you are engaging in? Anyway I disagree with your last claim.

Knowledge, like the concept of biology and all other other concepts, also is experience.
Suppose it wasn't experience. What would be different in practice?

Humans have this silly, ancient tradition of defining very fuzzy categories and then debating enlessly about what goes into them
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:27 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:26 amAll thoieirues
Isn't that the sort of dialogue you are engaging in? Anyway I disagree with your last claim.

Knowledge, like the concept of biology and all other other concepts, also is experience.
Suppose it wasn't experience. What would be different in practice?

Humans have this silly, ancient tradition of defining very fuzzy categories and then debating enlessly about what goes into them


It would be different in practice.
All theories of existence are philosophically interesting but some are more coherent and more ethically acceptable than others.
Within inductive logic a definition is ad hoc and pro tem so that each definition is hypothetical and that is how common sense and science both work in this relative and temporal world. For deductive logic a definition is tautological and is used to confirm that arguments are valid.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:59 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:27 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:26 amAll thoieirues
Isn't that the sort of dialogue you are engaging in? Anyway I disagree with your last claim.

Knowledge, like the concept of biology and all other other concepts, also is experience.
Suppose it wasn't experience. What would be different in practice?

Humans have this silly, ancient tradition of defining very fuzzy categories and then debating enlessly about what goes into them


It would be different in practice.
All theories of existence are philosophically interesting but some are more coherent and more ethically acceptable than others.
Within inductive logic a definition is ad hoc and pro tem so that each definition is hypothetical and that is how common sense and science both work in this relative and temporal world. For deductive logic a definition is tautological and is used to confirm that arguments are valid.
I can't fathom how that would work.

Theories are like the lenses you put in your glasses - they make you interpret the world differently, but they don't alter the world.
Altering your perception of what's going on doesn't change what's going on. Theories alter connotation, but not denotation.

It might cause you to adapt and change how you behave in response to the world, but I don't see that happening on the mere supposition that what's going on is not experience, but some other connotation.

Describing it better or differently doesn't alter or improve your "biology".
Post Reply