Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

Peter,

1 Mothers will (or do) try to protect their babies.
2 Mothers should try to protect their babies.

These utterances are divorced from real life. In real life every utterance has a social context.

For instance:

1. "Mothers will try to protect their babies" said the dairy farmer to the dog walker who had no concerns about crossing the cow pasture.
" Mothers will try to protect their babies" ordered the medical officer in charge of measles vaccinations.
" Mothers will try to protect their babies" is a law of nature and if it's natural it must be right.
" Mothers will try to protect their babies" , that is until they give them away under the terms of the surrogacy agreement.

Thanks, Belinda. I couldn't agree more: every utterance does have a social context.

My point is about the distinction between factual assertions, for example those explaining why mothers protect their babies, and moral assertions claiming that mothers should or ought to protect their babies. I'm not sure if you accept that distinction - but I think it's critical.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

Thanks, Belinda. I couldn't agree more: every utterance does have a social context.

My point is about the distinction between factual assertions, for example those explaining why mothers protect their babies, and moral assertions claiming that mothers should or ought to protect their babies. I'm not sure if you accept that distinction - but I think it's critical.
Top

But why mothers should protect their babies and that mothers protect their babies might imply the same criterion; that criterion is either nature or God depending on whether you are a theist or an atheist or pantheist.

As an atheist I claim it's nature that causes mothers to protect their babies and for people to claim it's right that mothers protect their babies, and wrong that any mother would not protect her baby.

My claim could be rebutted by the counter claim that atheism is itself a moral tenet . If you made this counter claim I'd counter that by boosting nature to Nature with capltal letter as the origin of good so that evil is absence of good i.e. unnatural.

However what causes a people to be largely pantheists , theists, or atheists is their culture. So we are back to square one. You cannot separate morality from culture.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

Thanks, Belinda. I couldn't agree more: every utterance does have a social context.

My point is about the distinction between factual assertions, for example those explaining why mothers protect their babies, and moral assertions claiming that mothers should or ought to protect their babies. I'm not sure if you accept that distinction - but I think it's critical.
Top

But why mothers should protect their babies and that mothers protect their babies might imply the same criterion; that criterion is either nature or God depending on whether you are a theist or an atheist or pantheist.

As an atheist I claim it's nature that causes mothers to protect their babies and for people to claim it's right that mothers protect their babies, and wrong that any mother would not protect her baby.

My claim could be rebutted by the counter claim that atheism is itself a moral tenet . If you made this counter claim I'd counter that by boosting nature to Nature with capltal letter as the origin of good so that evil is absence of good i.e. unnatural.

However what causes a people to be largely pantheists , theists, or atheists is their culture. So we are back to square one. You cannot separate morality from culture.

Okay. As an atheist, I agree that nature is the cause or source of our morality. I just maintain that a factual - such as a causal - explanation can never entail a moral claim. The barrier between 'is' and 'ought' is insuperable. Others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different moral claims. Disagreements over abortion, capital punishment and veganism (for example) obviously demonstrate that.

Thanks for the craic, Belinda.

[Univalence]

The barrier between 'is' and 'ought' is insuperable.

No, it isn't. What you call "is" your parents, grandparents and ancestors called "ought".
So if you are going to be making any claims about morality then make them empirically testable:

If morality was objective then X will be observed.
If morality was subjective then Y will be observed.

So here's my claim:

If morality was objective then we would observe reduction of murder across society.
If morality was subjective then murder rates would remain steady throughout the ages ( law of averages )

Others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different moral claims.

Without cherry-picking noise in the data, show me how you are going to deploy the fact that the murder rate has been drastically reduced across society in the last 700 years to justify the claim that murder is right.

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

The people in 1300 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1400 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1500 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1600 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1700 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1800 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1900 thought they ought to reduce murder.

Peter of 2019 struggles with the is-ought gap.

In 2019 murder still happens (obviously) and it's still as objectively wrong as it was in 1300.

From any subjective point of view there are 8 billion objects which make morality objective.
The other humans you live with.

[Peter Holmes]

The barrier between 'is' and 'ought' is insuperable.

No, it isn't. What you call "is" your parents, grandparents and ancestors called "ought".
So if you are going to be making any claims about morality then make them empirically testable:

If morality was objective then X will be observed.
If morality was subjective then Y will be observed.

So here's my claim:

If morality was objective then we would observe reduction of murder across society.
If morality was subjective then murder rates would remain steady throughout the ages ( law of averages )

Others can deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify different moral claims.

Without cherry-picking noise in the data, show me how you are going to deploy the fact that the murder rate has been drastically reduced across society in the last 700 years to justify the claim that murder is right.

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

The people in 1300 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1400 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1500 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1600 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1700 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1800 thought they ought to reduce murder.
The people in 1900 thought they ought to reduce murder.

Peter of 2019 struggles with the is-ought gap.

In 2019 murder still happens (obviously) and it's still as objectively wrong as it was in 1300.

From any subjective point of view there are 8 billion objects which make morality objective.
The other humans you live with.

This confirms that you don't grasp the issues or understand my argument.

Your claim is: it's a fact that murder is wrong, because for 700 years people have believed that murder is wrong, and the murder rate has declined since 1300.

This is laughable. If people had believed for 700 years that murder is right, and the murder rate had risen since 1300, would that mean that it's a fact that murder is right?

[Univalence]

This is laughable. If people had believed for 700 years that murder is right, and the murder rate had risen since 1300, would that mean that it's a fact that murder is right?

IF people had believed that and IF murder had increased - that's precisely what it would mean.

Alas. No such thing happened in reality. Despite the fact that world population grew 20 times.

You are the one who insisted on facts!
What is laughable is your attempt to move the goalposts to the hypothetical realm now that the facts are before you.

This confirms that you don't grasp the issues or understand my argument.

I understand your argument enough to show you that you are wrong even on your own terms.

[Peter Holmes]

This is laughable. If people had believed for 700 years that murder is right, and the murder rate had risen since 1300, would that mean that it's a fact that murder is right?

IF people had believed that and IF murder had increased - that's precisely what it would mean.

Alas. No such thing happened in reality. Despite the fact that world population grew 20 times.

You are the one who insisted on facts!
What is laughable is your attempt to move the goalposts to the hypothetical realm now that the facts are before you.

This confirms that you don't grasp the issues or understand my argument.

Okay. So your argument is:

1 If what people believe is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong, then morality is objective.
2 What people believe is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong.
C Morality is objective.

Absurd and morally bankrupt. I'm done with you.

[Univalence]

Okay. So your argument is:

1 If what people believe is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong, then morality is objective.
2 What people believe is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong.
C Morality is objective.

Absurd and morally bankrupt. I'm done with you.

No. That isn’t my argument. That is a strawman.
IF your grandmother had a dick you wouldn’t be here

So let’s see where we have arrived.

I have claimed that I know murder is wrong.
I have produced evidence which suggests the majority of humans who lived since 1300 knew that murder is wrong.

There is something intrinsic in our nature which makes us abhor murder. Therefore morality is objective.

If I was the only “object” who holds that knowledge then It would be anecdotal. But there are billions of “objects” who have held the same knowledge since at least 1300. That is a lot of factual evidence to sweep under the carpet.

I am defending objective morality and the wrongness of murder and you are calling me “morally bankrupt”.

Would you say that is an ad hominem? I would.

It is OK, to admit when you are wrong. I won’t judge you.

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. So your argument is:

1 If what people believe is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong, then morality is objective.
2 What people believe is morally right or wrong is morally right or wrong.
C Morality is objective.

Absurd and morally bankrupt. I'm done with you.

No. That isn’t my argument. That is a strawman.
IF your grandmother had a dick you wouldn’t be here

So let’s see where we have arrived.

I have claimed that I know murder is wrong.
I have produced evidence which suggests the majority of humans who lived since 1300 knew that murder is wrong.

There is something intrinsic in our nature which makes us abhor murder. Therefore morality is objective.

If I was the only “object” who holds that knowledge then It would be anecdotal. But there are billions of “objects” who have held the same knowledge since at least 1300. That is a lot of factual evidence to sweep under the carpet.

I am defending objective morality and the wrongness of murder and you are calling me “morally bankrupt”.

Would you say that is an ad hominem? I would.

It is OK, to admit when you are wrong. I won’t judge you.

Here's what you wrote in reply to my comment:

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 11:43 am
This is laughable. If people had believed for 700 years that murder is right, and the murder rate had risen since 1300, would that mean that it's a fact that murder is right?
IF people had believed that and IF murder had increased - that's precisely what it would mean.

There is the moral bankruptcy of your argument. Unless your words don't mean what they seem to mean.

[Univalence]

There is the moral bankruptcy of your argument. Unless your words don't mean what they seem to mean.

My words mean precisely the way I have quantified their meaning and consequences. My definitions are empirical, testable, verifiable and falsifiable e.g my claims are as objective as science. Do you struggle with mathematics, statistics and empiricism perhaps?

If murder is "right" it would be maximized through human history.
If murder is "wrong" it would be minimized through human history.
If murder is neither right nor wrong (which is equivalent to your claim)- it would remain constant throughout history because of the Law of large numbers/averages.

Therefore, I am as comfortable saying "humans have morality" as I am saying "humans have kidneys".

You need to find some new pejoratives for your ad-hominems, because to accuse an objective moralist of "moral bankruptcy" is equivalent to intellectual bankruptcy.

[Peter Holmes]

There is the moral bankruptcy of your argument. Unless your words don't mean what they seem to mean.

My words mean precisely the way I have quantified their meaning and consequences. My definitions are empirical, testable and falsifiable. Something which cannot be said about your own words.
Do you struggle with mathematics, statistics and empiricism perhaps?

If murder is "right" it would be maximized through human history.
If murder is "wrong" it would be minimized through human history.
If murder is neither right nor wrong (which is equivalent to your claim)- it would remain constant throughout history because of the law of averages.

You need to find some new pejoratives for your ad-hominems, because to accuse an objective moralist of "moral bankruptcy" is equivalent to intellectual bankruptcy.

Your claims about the law of averages and its relation to the morality of murder are too ridiculous to bother with.

And if you think that what people believe is morally right or wrong is indeed (factually) morally right or wrong, then you are claiming that if people believe murder is morally right, then murder is indeed (factually) morally right. The fact that you can't understand this consequence of your claim demonstrates that you really don't understand what we're talking about. You may not be morally bankrupt, but your argument is.

[Univalence]

Your claims about the law of averages and its relation to the morality of murder are too ridiculous to bother with.

Translation "empiricism is too ridiculous to bother with. Fuck the scientific epistemology!"

Ok. Good luck being as dumb as you are.

And if you think that what people believe is morally right or wrong is indeed (factually) morally right or wrong, then you are claiming that if people believe murder is morally right, then murder is indeed (factually) morally right. The fact that you can't understand this consequence of your claim demonstrates that you really don't understand what we're talking about. You may not be morally bankrupt, but your argument is.

Strawman. People don't believe that murder is right. People know that murder is wrong.

It's testable and falsifiable! Therefore - it's objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Your claims about the law of averages and its relation to the morality of murder are too ridiculous to bother with.

Translation "empiricism is too ridiculous to bother with. Fuck the scientific epistemology!"

Ok. Good luck being as dumb as you are.

And if you think that what people believe is morally right or wrong is indeed (factually) morally right or wrong, then you are claiming that if people believe murder is morally right, then murder is indeed (factually) morally right. The fact that you can't understand this consequence of your claim demonstrates that you really don't understand what we're talking about. You may not be morally bankrupt, but your argument is.

Strawman. People don't believe that murder is right. People know that murder is wrong.

It's testable and falsifiable! Therefore - it's objective.

Please can you just answer this question, without getting into a flap?:

If people believe murder is right, does that mean that murder is right?

Perhaps I can help. If your answer is, as I assume, 'no', then it follows that, if people believe murder is wrong, that also doesn't mean that murder is wrong.

Now, if we substitute 'claim to know' instead of 'believe', we get this: If people claim to know that murder is right, does that mean that murder is right? To which our shared answer, again, is 'no'. (Correct me if I misrepresent you.) So it follows that, if people claim to know that murder is wrong, that doesn't mean that murder is wrong. To deny that conclusion is to commit a special pleading fallacy, as you know.

Any thoughts about my reasoning?

[Univalence]

Please can you just answer this question, without getting into a flap?:

If people believe murder is right, does that mean that murder is right?

I am not in the habit of answering loaded questions.

If people believe the Earth is flat does this mean the Earth is flat?

[Peter Holmes]

Please can you just answer this question, without getting into a flap?:

If people believe murder is right, does that mean that murder is right?

I am not in the habit of answering loaded questions.

If people believe the Earth is flat does this mean the Earth is flat?

Please go back to my previous comment, where I've added some reasoning that may help. I apologise for the cross-over.