Is morality objective or subjective?
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
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."
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."
-
- Posts: 6795
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
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.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."
-
- Posts: 3770
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I think that's right - and nicely put, as usual. And the 'there is no teleology' point is very important.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'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.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
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 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:47 amWe 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.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."
-
- Posts: 6795
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Right. We can draw the conclusion that one may not be an appreciated member of sociey without empathy, the practical consequences.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.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
You are confused about who's confused. Only "life" (you!) distinguish between life and non-life, biology and non-biology.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 amYou are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
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
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
The usual confusion of the sophist...Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:40 amI think that's right - and nicely put, as usual. And the 'there is no teleology' point is very important.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'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 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.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Yes, biology and society are different categories.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 amYou are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
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.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Belinda,Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:47 pmYes, biology and society are different categories.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 amYou are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
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.
OUTSTANDING!!
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:36 pmYou are confused about who's confused. Only "life" (you!) distinguish between life and non-life, biology and non-biology.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 amYou are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
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.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
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.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:27 amSkepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:36 pmYou are confused about who's confused. Only "life" (you!) distinguish between life and non-life, biology and non-biology.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:04 am
You are confusing the word with the thing. Biology is life in all its forms.
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.
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.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:16 amThe point is that "biology", "chemistry", "physics", "ethics" etc, etc, etc are just categories and level of abstraction by which we organise our own knowledge.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:27 am
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.
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.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
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
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
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.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I can't fathom how that would work.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 03, 2022 11:59 am
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.
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".