What could make morality objective?

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

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 7:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:10 pm What could make morality objective?

How many times has this question appeared on this and other Forums?
Too many times!
And how many times have any proponents of the idea even tried to field a single moral rule which is objectively sound?
Not once!

What could make morality objective?

Nothing!
EXCELLENT!
Thank you.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:40 am
Age wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:36 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:28 am
Are you now informing me that you believe that you have beliefs?
NO.

Did you really just MISS what I just said and pointed out?

As can be clearly seen here, once again, these people really did misconstrue things because of their BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.
That can't be what's happening here.
What can be clearly seen here is another great example of when one BELIEVES some thing to be true then that are NOT at all OPEN to ANY thing contrary.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:40 am I believe that I have neither beliefs nor assumptions.
Well you are absolutely FREE to BELIEVE whatever you want. But the hypocrisy and contradiction within it is completely obvious.

Enjoy this BELIEF of yours here, as it does, after all, provide another great example of what it is that I want to communicate, and show.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:45 am
Age wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:17 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:58 am You have privileged access to your own beliefs.
For your information, I have NO beliefs.
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:58 am Anyone can disagree with what you profess to believe, but they can't reasonably disagree that your beliefs are what you believe.
Moot.
I bet you believe you were born, and that you will die .
You are absolutely FREE to bet whatever you like, but doing so does NOT make you right in ANY way what so ever

I bet you believe you were once a child, and your vivid memories of your childhood really happened much as you remember them.

You can, but you would lose.
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 11:45 am These memories are part of what you believe, and are unlike anyone else's memories.
You went OFF TRACK,SO QUICKLY. And, AGAIN, this was because of the ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS you made up and concluded, BEFORE, you soought out ANY CLARIFICATION, AT ALL.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:14 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:06 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 11:58 am You have privileged access to your own beliefs. Anyone can disagree with what you profess to believe, but they can't reasonably disagree that your beliefs are what you believe.
Actually they can. There are a number of ways this can be well justified, but a very common one is to point to behavior. If someone says they believe the races are equal but repeatedly treats one race very differently from others, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.

Language use can often indicate someone believes something other than what they say they believe. If they repeated refer to things being out of their control, but when they engage in a discussion of free will vs. determinism they assert that we are totally free, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.

There are other ways one can be justified in doubting what people say and even honestly believe they believe.

And we can be mistaken about what we believe. This does not mean that the person is lying. Our egos and super egos present us will all sorts of motivations to believe we believe one thing when in fact we believe another. And also we can have contradictory beliefs about something.
Telling lies or holding to a distorted cognition are tangential matters . I did consider mentioning these but I thought it was better to keep the discussion to its elements.

If you go along that tangent you are in an infinite regress. "He said he believed the world was round but he was lying. He believed he was lying but he conveniently forgot his belief was a lie. He did however believe that he did not always think straight, and that he believed all the time the world round.And so forth.
Well, people can be wrong about their beliefs and one can point out evidence and disagree with what they say their beliefs are. That's all. And be reasonable when doing this. I don't see it leading to an infinite regress, at least not necessarily. I've even been in situations where pointing out contradictions between an asserted belief and the person's behavior has led to the person reevaluating their belief. No infinite regress. In fact, not even a multi-step regress. Psychologists often help people realize that their beliefs are not what they think they are. And solid partners and spouses. This is a tangent, but then, the orginal statement is one also.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:10 pm What could make morality objective?

How many times has this question appeared on this and other Forums?
I am NOT sure.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:10 pm Too many times!
How many is 'enough', and, how many was 'too many'?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:10 pm And how many times have any proponents of the idea even tried to field a single moral rule which is objectively sound?
Not once!
Well let me change this, for you.

A single moral rule, or lore, which is objectively sound IS:
Do not abuse ANY thing.

And, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS NOW is that you can NOT SEE this because you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO moral rule, which could even be objectively sound.

And you have and HOLD this BELIEF partly because you do NOT YET KNOW how to even find NOR obtain 'objectivity', properly.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:10 pm What could make morality objective?
The thing that makes things objective. And, what that is, is 'that', which is in AGREEMENT with EVERY one. One first needs to be able to SEE from EVERY thing's perspective to be able to obtain 'objectivity'.

But one has to also learn how to find and obtain, correctly, what is morally right and morally wrong in Life, AS WELL, in order to KNOW HOW to gain 'moral objectivity'.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 3:10 pm Nothing!
Are you 100% absolutely sure and positive, without ANY doubt AT ALL, of this?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:14 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:06 pm Actually they can. There are a number of ways this can be well justified, but a very common one is to point to behavior. If someone says they believe the races are equal but repeatedly treats one race very differently from others, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.

Language use can often indicate someone believes something other than what they say they believe. If they repeated refer to things being out of their control, but when they engage in a discussion of free will vs. determinism they assert that we are totally free, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.

There are other ways one can be justified in doubting what people say and even honestly believe they believe.

And we can be mistaken about what we believe. This does not mean that the person is lying. Our egos and super egos present us will all sorts of motivations to believe we believe one thing when in fact we believe another. And also we can have contradictory beliefs about something.
Telling lies or holding to a distorted cognition are tangential matters . I did consider mentioning these but I thought it was better to keep the discussion to its elements.

If you go along that tangent you are in an infinite regress. "He said he believed the world was round but he was lying. He believed he was lying but he conveniently forgot his belief was a lie. He did however believe that he did not always think straight, and that he believed all the time the world round.And so forth.
Well, people can be wrong about their beliefs and one can point out evidence and disagree with what they say their beliefs are. That's all. And be reasonable when doing this. I don't see it leading to an infinite regress, at least not necessarily. I've even been in situations where pointing out contradictions between an asserted belief and the person's behavior has led to the person reevaluating their belief. No infinite regress. In fact, not even a multi-step regress. Psychologists often help people realize that their beliefs are not what they think they are. And solid partners and spouses. This is a tangent, but then, the orginal statement is one also.
I found that by NOT choosing to have or hold ANY BELIEF, AT ALL, then ALL issues raised above do NOT even exist.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:14 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:06 pm Actually they can. There are a number of ways this can be well justified, but a very common one is to point to behavior. If someone says they believe the races are equal but repeatedly treats one race very differently from others, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.

Language use can often indicate someone believes something other than what they say they believe. If they repeated refer to things being out of their control, but when they engage in a discussion of free will vs. determinism they assert that we are totally free, we can challenge their assertion of what they believe.

There are other ways one can be justified in doubting what people say and even honestly believe they believe.

And we can be mistaken about what we believe. This does not mean that the person is lying. Our egos and super egos present us will all sorts of motivations to believe we believe one thing when in fact we believe another. And also we can have contradictory beliefs about something.
Telling lies or holding to a distorted cognition are tangential matters . I did consider mentioning these but I thought it was better to keep the discussion to its elements.

If you go along that tangent you are in an infinite regress. "He said he believed the world was round but he was lying. He believed he was lying but he conveniently forgot his belief was a lie. He did however believe that he did not always think straight, and that he believed all the time the world round.And so forth.
Well, people can be wrong about their beliefs and one can point out evidence and disagree with what they say their beliefs are. That's all. And be reasonable when doing this. I don't see it leading to an infinite regress, at least not necessarily. I've even been in situations where pointing out contradictions between an asserted belief and the person's behavior has led to the person reevaluating their belief. No infinite regress. In fact, not even a multi-step regress. Psychologists often help people realize that their beliefs are not what they think they are. And solid partners and spouses. This is a tangent, but then, the orginal statement is one also.
Yes, you are right. But what about stuff most competent adults believe, that they were born and that they will die? That when they feel thirsty they like to drink? There must be a spectrum of probability on which an individual arranges their beliefs.
People have standards they use to evaluate their beliefs regardless of whether the beliefs are ethics or facts. Standards themselves need to be evaluated. The standard of belief which is some authority or other is itself an immoral standard.

But then I find that I myself pin my faith on what experts such as medical doctors' and pharmacists' authority. The social world runs on trust. People have become less trusting of authorities and rightly so. There is a balance to be found between trust and scepticism, and here too we rely on our subjective interpretation of probabilities.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 12:38 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:51 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:14 pm Telling lies or holding to a distorted cognition are tangential matters . I did consider mentioning these but I thought it was better to keep the discussion to its elements.

If you go along that tangent you are in an infinite regress. "He said he believed the world was round but he was lying. He believed he was lying but he conveniently forgot his belief was a lie. He did however believe that he did not always think straight, and that he believed all the time the world round.And so forth.
Well, people can be wrong about their beliefs and one can point out evidence and disagree with what they say their beliefs are. That's all. And be reasonable when doing this. I don't see it leading to an infinite regress, at least not necessarily. I've even been in situations where pointing out contradictions between an asserted belief and the person's behavior has led to the person reevaluating their belief. No infinite regress. In fact, not even a multi-step regress. Psychologists often help people realize that their beliefs are not what they think they are. And solid partners and spouses. This is a tangent, but then, the orginal statement is one also.
Yes, you are right. But what about stuff most competent adults believe, that they were born and that they will die? That when they feel thirsty they like to drink? There must be a spectrum of probability on which an individual arranges their beliefs.
People have standards they use to evaluate their beliefs regardless of whether the beliefs are ethics or facts. Standards themselves need to be evaluated. The standard of belief which is some authority or other is itself an immoral standard.

But then I find that I myself pin my faith on what experts such as medical doctors' and pharmacists' authority. The social world runs on trust. People have become less trusting of authorities and rightly so. There is a balance to be found between trust and scepticism, and here too we rely on our subjective interpretation of probabilities.
Truth to the individual is experience, truth to the group is an agreement.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 12:38 am Yes, you are right. But what about stuff most competent adults believe, that they were born and that they will die? That when they feel thirsty they like to drink? There must be a spectrum of probability on which an individual arranges their beliefs.
Agreed. And this would include beliefs about what one believes. I am not arguing - in case this was/is an issue - that we just throw up our arms and decide we can't know our beliefs or that there is no foundation for any belief, etc.
People have standards they use to evaluate their beliefs regardless of whether the beliefs are ethics or facts. Standards themselves need to be evaluated. The standard of belief which is some authority or other is itself an immoral standard.
I agree with the first sentence. I certainly value evaluating my standards (re, sentence two). I am not sure what sentence 3 means.
But then I find that I myself pin my faith on what experts such as medical doctors' and pharmacists' authority.
I certainly use such experts in deciding things, but I don't have faith in them. I experienced a problematic dark side of medical and pharmaceutical experts when I was a child. And I do not mean some doctor's error, but systematic problems - money affecting 'scientific' conclusions and paradigmatic distortions. As a child I only had a gut feeling something was off, but later as an adult I could investigate and understand what had been going on. I do not assume all conclusions or even most conclusiosn are wrong with those experts. But I think combining knowledge of how monied interests distort science with an understand of how dominant paradigms distort expertise, you can develop some pretty good heuristics for, yes, using such experts, but also knowing when to call their expertise into quetions. IOW how to recognize the patters of skewdness, why they are there and when to go against expert conclusions. Not that this process is infallible. But none is.

h
The social world runs on trust. People have become less trusting of authorities and rightly so. There is a balance to be found between trust and scepticism, and here too we rely on our subjective interpretation of probabilities.
I agree with a proviso: I think one can also use objectively achieved information to guide this. I do say, also.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 5:44 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 12, 2022 12:38 am Yes, you are right. But what about stuff most competent adults believe, that they were born and that they will die? That when they feel thirsty they like to drink? There must be a spectrum of probability on which an individual arranges their beliefs.
Agreed. And this would include beliefs about what one believes. I am not arguing - in case this was/is an issue - that we just throw up our arms and decide we can't know our beliefs or that there is no foundation for any belief, etc.
People have standards they use to evaluate their beliefs regardless of whether the beliefs are ethics or facts. Standards themselves need to be evaluated. The standard of belief which is some authority or other is itself an immoral standard.
I agree with the first sentence. I certainly value evaluating my standards (re, sentence two). I am not sure what sentence 3 means.
But then I find that I myself pin my faith on what experts such as medical doctors' and pharmacists' authority.
I certainly use such experts in deciding things, but I don't have faith in them. I experienced a problematic dark side of medical and pharmaceutical experts when I was a child. And I do not mean some doctor's error, but systematic problems - money affecting 'scientific' conclusions and paradigmatic distortions. As a child I only had a gut feeling something was off, but later as an adult I could investigate and understand what had been going on. I do not assume all conclusions or even most conclusiosn are wrong with those experts. But I think combining knowledge of how monied interests distort science with an understand of how dominant paradigms distort expertise, you can develop some pretty good heuristics for, yes, using such experts, but also knowing when to call their expertise into quetions. IOW how to recognize the patters of skewdness, why they are there and when to go against expert conclusions. Not that this process is infallible. But none is.

h
The social world runs on trust. People have become less trusting of authorities and rightly so. There is a balance to be found between trust and scepticism, and here too we rely on our subjective interpretation of probabilities.
I agree with a proviso: I think one can also use objectively achieved information to guide this. I do say, also.
by "standard of belief which is some authority" I mean e.g. "Because The Bible said it" or "Because the King said it" or "Because Trump said it" or "Because the terrorist said it". But at this point in my argument I find that
A healthy tree bears good fruit, but a poor tree bears bad fruit. ... In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a rotten tree produces bad fruit.
is true for me, not because it's in The Bible but because it makes sense.

The holy grail of historians is ability to understand other cultures of belief, and for everyone the truth aim is the same method : to rise above , or circumvent, one's own prejudices. With authorities separated into good authorities and bad authorities by Matthew's method, it's bad to relinquish one's own moral responsibility to a bad authority.

Your discussion of how to recognise evil is especially meaningful in the context of which trees are the ones that bear good fruit and which bear bad fruit. And I think the discussion of how to recognise evil should be a dedicated forum.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Age wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:58 pm A single moral rule, or lore, which is objectively sound IS:
Do not abuse ANY thing.

And, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS NOW is that you can NOT SEE this because you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO moral rule, which could even be objectively sound.
There's no such thing as an objective rule, sound or not. A rule - do this, don't do that - isn't a declarative. It doesn't assert a fact: this is the case. And objectivity is about facts. Imperatives have no truth-value.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pm There's no such thing as an objective rule
Yes, there is.

Any rule which has causal effect on reality is objective rule.

Such as the rule to stop at red stop signs which causes people to stop at red stop signs.
The software which causes your computer to function - objective rules.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pm Imperatives have no truth-value.
Yes they do.

Having imperatively programmed your alarm clock for 7am it is true; and not false that your alarm clock will ring at 7am.

Having uttered "Alexa, turn on the lights" it is true and not false that the lights in my house turned on.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

It can be a fact - a feature of reality - that a rule has a causal effect. And that a rule exists and people obey it can be a fact. And objectivity is about facts.

But to say a rule - a command - is or asserts a fact is a category error. It's like saying that, because people believe something, what they believe is a fact. For example: it's a fact that many benighted people believe there are gods; therefore, there are gods. (This is absurd.)

An imperative has no truth-value. The command 'go away' is neither true nor false. And obedience to it doesn't make it true, just as disobedience doesn't make it false. The prediction that people will go away can turn out to be true or false, but that doesn't make the command true or false. (I wonder why this needs explaining.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:22 pm But to say a rule - a command - is or asserts a fact is a category error.
I don't understand what you mean by "error".

I have presented you with a taxonomy in which imperatives have truth-value by extending the usual notions to apply to the future: My alarm clock will ring at 7:00am tomorrow - it's an objective fact. The state of my lights factually and objectively corresponds to the imperative "Alxea, turn on the lights". I ought to have coffee will objectively factualise in 5 minutes.

The imperatives correspond to the future; and are therefore true!

Naturally, you don't have to agree with my world-view, but a disagreement on your part doesn't amount to an "error" on mine. Asserting deliberate actions as "erroneous" is a moral claim.

The burden of proof is in your court. May I burn in hell for my "miscategorisation".
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Age »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pm
Age wrote: Fri Nov 11, 2022 9:58 pm A single moral rule, or lore, which is objectively sound IS:
Do not abuse ANY thing.

And, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS NOW is that you can NOT SEE this because you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO moral rule, which could even be objectively sound.
There's no such thing as an objective rule, sound or not.
AND, as I just VERY CLEARLY STATED, what is CLEARLY OBVIOUS NOW, has ABSOLUTELY been Truly backed up with IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pm A rule - do this, don't do that - isn't a declarative.
SO WHAT? It is AGREED WITH AND ACCEPTED by EVERY one. WHICH MEANS that it is OBJECTIVELY True, which makes it an OBJECTIVE Truth, as well as being OBJECTIVELY Right in this case,
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pm It doesn't assert a fact: this is the case.
If absolutely EVERY one is in AGREEMENT WITH it, then it is A Fact.

Or, if you like, if NO one is DISAGREEING with it, then there is NO one refuting it, which, ONCE AGAIN, means it is A Fact.

Where were you thinking Facts come from anyway, EXACTLY?
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:15 pm And objectivity is about facts. Imperatives have no truth-value.
And I have just expressed ANOTHER Fact, which is OBJECTIVELY True, Right, AND Correct.

Also, NO amount of 'your' SUBJECTIVE thoughts on the matter could OVERRIDE this IRREFUTABLE Fact, which I have just expressed here.

AGAIN, A moral lore, which IS OBJECTIVELY SOUND IS: Do not abuse ANY thing.

Now, IF you want to TWIST and DISTORT things AGAIN here and say it is NOT an objective rule when I specifically SAID and STATED that it IS a MORAL rule, or lore, which is OBJECTIVELY SOUND, then go ahead and TWIST and DISTORT things around AGAIN.
Post Reply