What could make morality objective?
Re: What could make morality objective?
If there is no objective morality, we have to make up our own morality if we want to minimized confusion. If there are objective moral principles, we don't know what they are. There is no satisfactory answer as to what is right and wrong. So, we still must make up our ouwn principles.
However not all moral codes are created equal. Some have high standards and some have low., like there is high and low quallty cooking. I think the virtue ethics of Plato is high-standard. .
For practical reasons, high ethical standards are beneficial, as in high-quality cooking attracts more customers.
However not all moral codes are created equal. Some have high standards and some have low., like there is high and low quallty cooking. I think the virtue ethics of Plato is high-standard. .
For practical reasons, high ethical standards are beneficial, as in high-quality cooking attracts more customers.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Is there an ultimate criterion for high quality cooking?Jori wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:57 am If there is no objective morality, we have to make up our own morality if we want to minimized confusion. If there are objective moral principles, we don't know what they are. There is no satisfactory answer as to what is right and wrong. So, we still must make up our ouwn principles.
However not all moral codes are created equal. Some have high standards and some have low., like there is high and low quallty cooking. I think the virtue ethics of Plato is high-standard. .
For practical reasons, high ethical standards are beneficial, as in high-quality cooking attracts more customers.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6317
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
I kind of thought Virtue Ethics was Aristotle?Jori wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:57 am If there is no objective morality, we have to make up our own morality if we want to minimized confusion. If there are objective moral principles, we don't know what they are. There is no satisfactory answer as to what is right and wrong. So, we still must make up our ouwn principles.
However not all moral codes are created equal. Some have high standards and some have low., like there is high and low quallty cooking. I think the virtue ethics of Plato is high-standard. .
For practical reasons, high ethical standards are beneficial, as in high-quality cooking attracts more customers.
Choosing which ethical sets of practices have "high standards" versus the others sort of entails some grounds for making such a choice that are objective in terms not easily justified if there is no satisfactory answer as to what is right and wrong.
Personally I would recommend Isiah Berlin's value pluralism model, even though he and I diverge at the point where I become a moral skeptic and he most certinly did not. But every time I mention that guy, I piss somebody or other off. Eitehr way, he thought that the assignment of 'high and low standards' piece was acheivable still, but that part of his theory seems like a kludge to me.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Every problem in ethics reduces to the problem of model selection!FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 11:31 am I kind of thought Virtue Ethics was Aristotle?
Choosing which ethical sets of practices have "high standards" versus the others sort of entails some grounds for making such a choice that are objective in terms not easily justified if there is no satisfactory answer as to what is right and wrong.
Personally I would recommend Isiah Berlin's value pluralism model, even though he and I diverge at the point where I become a moral skeptic and he most certinly did not. But every time I mention that guy, I piss somebody or other off. Eitehr way, he thought that the assignment of 'high and low standards' piece was acheivable still, but that part of his theory seems like a kludge to me.
Conceptualise ethics/morality however you want - believe (or don't believe) whatever you want!
Either model A is morally better than model B; or model B is morally better than model A.
Symbolically it's expressed as this tautology: ( (A > B) ⇔ T ) ∨ ( ( B > A) ⇔ T )
IF morality is objective, then there exists a mechanism which selects the better model, whichever one that is.
A moral skeptic believes the existence of such mechanism is unknown and perhaps even unknowable.
Lacking knowledge of such a mechanism, a moral skeptic doesn't know how to eliminate one of the tautologies - a moral skeptic does not know how to select the better model.
Being unable to select the better model, being unable to rank A against B amounts to believing that A = B.
There are no moral skeptics. Only moral relativists.
-
- Posts: 3777
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
Moral subjectivism is just the rejection of the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts.
So moral subjectivism is not moral skepticism, and it doesn't entail moral relativism. If there's nothing to be known, there's nothing about knowledge of which we should be skeptical or relativistic.
Moral objectivists, who can't demonstrate the existence of moral facts - and are therefore wrong - nonetheless cling to the argument from non-existent undesirable consequences to condemn moral subjectivists as relativists or skeptics.
So moral subjectivism is not moral skepticism, and it doesn't entail moral relativism. If there's nothing to be known, there's nothing about knowledge of which we should be skeptical or relativistic.
Moral objectivists, who can't demonstrate the existence of moral facts - and are therefore wrong - nonetheless cling to the argument from non-existent undesirable consequences to condemn moral subjectivists as relativists or skeptics.
Re: What could make morality objective?
This dude doesn't even get the point. Ignore him.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:33 pm Moral subjectivism is just the rejection of the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts.
So moral subjectivism is not moral skepticism, and it doesn't entail moral relativism. If there's nothing to be known, there's nothing about knowledge of which we should be skeptical or relativistic.
Moral objectivists, who can't demonstrate the existence of moral facts - and are therefore wrong - nonetheless cling to the argument from non-existent undesirable consequences to condemn moral subjectivists as relativists or skeptics.
He is obscuring as hard as he can with the jargon of "claims" and "rejections of claims".
The question of the objectivity of morality exists in the context of ceteris paribus.
All things being equal two possible futures exist:
A. A future in which we've killed Peter Holmes for fun.
B. A future in which we haven't killed Peter Holmes for fun.
To insist that morality is not objective is to insist that both futures will coexist.
That's moral relativism.
-
- Posts: 3777
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
The question is not which future will exist, but which which future should exist. And nothing in reality can answer that question. It's a matter of judgement, belief or opinion.
Ignore all attempts to circumvent that fact.
Ignore all attempts to circumvent that fact.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Observe the further obscurantism!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:12 pm The question is not which future will exist, but which which future should exist. And nothing in reality can answer that question. It's a matter of judgement, belief or opinion.
Ignore all attempts to circumvent that fact.
In the past we asked the question "Should we kill Peter Holmes for fun (A); or shouldn't we (B)?"
Both futures were possible futures: A or B.
Both futures continue to coexist, but it is incoherent nonsense to claim that both futures will or should exist.
Peter can't be both dead AND alive.
Observe that B became the past and present!
Observe that A didn't!
Who or what chose B?
Who or what discarded A?
It doesn't matter who or what discarded possible-future B. What matters is that possible-future B was discarded and future A was selected demonstrating that there exists a mechanism to select between A and B.
Morality is objective.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Jul 20, 2021 5:51 pm, edited 11 times in total.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What could make morality objective?
All adult human beings of sound mind display both moral objectivism and moral subjectivismPeter Holmes wrote:
Moral subjectivism is just the rejection of the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts
So moral subjectivism is not moral skepticism and it does not entail moral relativism . If there is nothing to be known there is nothing about knowledge of which we should be skeptical or relativistic
Moral objectivists who cannot demonstrate the existence of moral facts - and are therefore wrong - nonetheless cling to the argument from non existent undesirable consequences to condemn moral subjectivists as relativists or skeptics
Those who believe in moral objectivism will at some point fail to live up to that ideal
Those who believe in moral subjectivism will at some point display moral dogmatism
Not black and white therefore but shades of grey
We are talking about human beings not machines
-
- Posts: 3777
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: What could make morality objective?
1 Moral objectivism and subjectivism are claims about the nature of morality - not things that people 'display'.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 20, 2021 4:13 pmAll adult human beings of sound mind display both moral objectivism and moral subjectivismPeter Holmes wrote:
Moral subjectivism is just the rejection of the claim that morality is objective - that there are moral facts
So moral subjectivism is not moral skepticism and it does not entail moral relativism . If there is nothing to be known there is nothing about knowledge of which we should be skeptical or relativistic
Moral objectivists who cannot demonstrate the existence of moral facts - and are therefore wrong - nonetheless cling to the argument from non existent undesirable consequences to condemn moral subjectivists as relativists or skeptics
Those who believe in moral objectivism will at some point fail to live up to that ideal
Those who believe in moral subjectivism will at some point display moral dogmatism
Not black and white therefore but shades of grey
We are talking about human beings not machines
2 Belief that there are moral facts, and behaving in accordance with those supposed moral facts, are entirely separate issues.
3 Belief that there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, in no way entails a lack of moral dogmatism. I reject moral objectivity - because there are no moral facts - but I'm utterly dogmatic that slavery is morally wrong.
Re: What could make morality objective?
I guess I am a moral skeptic. Is it also skepticism if I assume something to be true and live as if it is true? I heard that a good scientist is a skeptic because he or she considers all conclusions as tentative. Science is dynamic. Theories can change. Good scientists are open minded.
Because I cannot absolutely know what is right and wrong, I made my own tentative code of conduct. That's all I can do. It think it is subjective. Is it relativistic if I think that I could be wrong and others could be right?
Because I cannot absolutely know what is right and wrong, I made my own tentative code of conduct. That's all I can do. It think it is subjective. Is it relativistic if I think that I could be wrong and others could be right?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Q.E.DPeter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:07 am I reject moral objectivity - because there are no moral facts - but I'm utterly dogmatic that slavery is morally wrong.
There exists an object in objective reality which can determine that non-slavery is better than slavery.
The existence of such an object in objective reality is what makes morality objective.
It is absolutely irrelevant that the objective object that makes morality objective happens to be a human.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Everything within reason.Jori wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:31 am I guess I am a moral skeptic. Is it also skepticism if I assume something to be true and live as if it is true? I heard that a good scientist is a skeptic because he or she considers all conclusions as tentative. Science is dynamic. Theories can change. Good scientists are open minded.
What evidence, would you imagine, could sway a good scientist to believe that murder used to be wrong, but it's now right?
You are only a moral relativist if you believe there is no difference between right and wrong.
Murder is as right as non-murder.
Rape is as right as non-rape.
Slavery is as right as non-slavery.
When a scientist says "There is no way of knowing" - what they really mean is that both theories are of equal weight. They are equal in all respects. Ceteris paribus.
A = B
Right = Wrong.
Nobody believes that! Not even scientists.
To be a moral skeptic is to be a moral relativist. And I've never met ANYBODY who believes "Anything goes."
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
a simple direct question deserves a simple, direct answer...
I've asked before...as I recall, I never got a decent answer from the subjectivists...let's have another go...
Why is slavery wrong?
Why is slavery wrong?
-
- Posts: 3777
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: a simple direct question deserves a simple, direct answer...
This means 'why do I / people / all of us think slavery is wrong'?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:37 pm I've asked before...as I recall, I never got a decent answer from the subjectivists...let's have another go...
Why is slavery wrong?
And no reason(s) we give can establish that it's a fact that slavery is wrong. It can only ever be an opinion. Nature of the beast.