What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are the retard the stupid, so blinded by ignorance and yet try to be arrogant and learned.

Note the link below;
If you read widely and not succumbed to confirmation bias, there are more of such alternative views to objective morality from what you are blinded with;

An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development.

Morality is a key factor in the success of human groups in competition or co-existence with one another.

A group's moral code represents an increasingly rational pattern of behavior derived from the collective experience of the group handed down from generation to generation.
Group selection is a controversial idea for animal evolution but it is inescapable in accounting for human evolution under the influence of language and the accumulation of cultural patterns.

Further, morality has an objective physiological and neurological basis in so far as it exists to moderate the expression of the array of genetically-derived emotional patterns.
Emotions represent the combination of action tendencies (neural motor programs) with physiologically-derived affective concomitants.
The relation between emotion, empathy, and morality is important.
Empathy (a special form of perception still largely unexplained) has a key role both in the formation and cohesion of human groups and in the observance within groups of a moral code.

Ultimately observance of moral rules depends on recognition by each individual of an integrating purpose in his/her life.

In so far as the moral code is directed towards achieving this integrating purpose, morality for the individual becomes objective.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 509190016J

The above is scientifically driven and has nothing to do with the absolute objectivity of God's moral command, Plato's universals and the likes.

Just admit you are a retard and is stupid.

Yes that's what morality itself is, but did you actually read what you quoted?

morality for the individual becomes objective

So it is NOT objective morality as per the standard definition of objective morality, it just becomes 'objective' for the individual. And this kind of 'objectivity' can be changed via cognitive restructuring for example.

Jesus Christ.

Hey, retard, don't try to eel your way out.
Read the whole quote from 1st statement to the last.

If morality is not applicable to the individuals, then it is applicable to who? your dog?

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

The above is scientifically driven and has nothing to do with the absolute objectivity of God's moral command, Plato's universals and the likes.

Why do you think scientifically driven is antithetical to God's moral command, or |Plato's universals?

Can't we have both heavenly universals and also empirical feet of clay? I imagine God could well encompass both perspectives, and infinitely more .

[Atla]

Yes that's what morality itself is, but did you actually read what you quoted?

morality for the individual becomes objective

So it is NOT objective morality as per the standard definition of objective morality, it just becomes 'objective' for the individual. And this kind of 'objectivity' can be changed via cognitive restructuring for example.

Jesus Christ.

Hey, retard, don't try to eel your way out.

If morality is not applicable to the individuals, then it is applicable to who? your dog?

What kind of brain damage made you say that I claimed "morality is not applicable to the individuals"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Atla wrote:

The above is scientifically driven and has nothing to do with the absolute objectivity of God's moral command, Plato's universals and the likes.

Why do you think scientifically driven is antithetical to God's moral command, or |Plato's universals?

Can't we have both heavenly universals and also empirical feet of clay? I imagine God could well encompass both perspectives, and infinitely more .

That is not Atla's point, it is what I wrote;

I don't believe God exists as real, so how can I agree there is a real god that issued moral commands that threaten theists with the threat of hell if they do not comply with his moral commands.

[Peter Holmes]

The application of evolutionary theory to social development, including the nature of beliefs, is hugely complicated and contested.

In this case, it's not even plausible. You yourself are unable to describe how a thing could go from being an important adaptive feature contributing to human survival, and suddenly turn into a detriment that works against our survival. You really would need to explain how that would happen.

2 The claim that belief in moral objectivity can't be accounted for by social evolution is false.

Great! Give us the account. How did moral objectivism come about, since you say it was never a true belief, but was still adaptive; and how did it cease to be adaptive, and become a detriment now? What changed between then and now?

I heard you. But it wasn't a good answer. If that's how things are, then the responsibility is on the person who thinks so to prove it; because by his own account, up until now, believing in objective morality has been a great thing for mankind -- if it's turned toxic, then it's on the claimant to explain how that's come about.

Moral objectivism has also been disastrous for mankind. One group's adaptive advantage has been another group's disadvantage.

That's just the story of survival of the fittest, and so as an evolutionist, you should accept that as a matter of course; your own worldview would lead you to expect that, and not even think it's "wrong" in any sense.

But let's keep this easy, and leave it at the species level: how has moral objectivism been "adaptive" for mankind in the past, helping them to survive and procreate, and suddenly become such a bad idea that you want it discontinued? You're going to have to explain that.

Prove that. Give me one example of a non-objective but non-relative moral precept.

Your burden of proof.

Yours, actually. Yours is the claim that there is such a thing as a non-objective but non-relative morality. If you can't even show one case, they you're surely bluffing.

Is that it? And it's not just on this planet, but every possible planet as well? But not "universal," you say?

What? I said I make that moral judgement universally - universally applicable.

You mean that you want to "apply it," or to compel all sentient creatures in the universe to agree with you, or think they should anyway, even though you can't explain why they should? That seems utterly implausible: why should they listen to one guy who insists his own morality is merely subjective anyway?

Why do you believe so?

Do you ask because you want to know, or because you think I can't have any reason to believe so? I suspect it's a rhetorical question.

No, I'm giving you credit for possibly having a reason...but I can think of nothing in subjective moralizing that allows that slavery is objectively or universally wrong.

Nice try. Objectivity and universality are separate issues here. My moral condemnation of slavery is universal - which means I think it was, is and will be morally wrong everywhere. And that's how we tend to make our moral judgements, because it would be inconsistent to do otherwise. Whether anyone else agrees with me, and what we anti-slavery types can and might want to do to promote our opinion - these are separate issues.

But the objectivity of morality - whether there are moral facts - is a different matter. Belief that a moral judgement is universally applicable is entirely consistent with belief that moral judgements are subjective - hard as you find that to understand.

No, we do agree all that about slavery. And I'd guess our reasons for believing it are similar.

I'm pretty convinced they're not similar. I think we happen to arrive at the same conclusion, in this case, but that's incidental. I have a reason for getting there, but one I'm sure you don't share; and so far as I can see, you have only a whim...a subjective whim. You're just saying, "subjectively, Peter doesn't like slavery, or want anybody else to like it either." However, I'm pretty sure you don't have a rationale that allows you to speak for what should be the case for slavery world wide, or universally. If you do, I'm quite eager to hear it.

To recapitulate. The question 'why did and do many people think morality is objective?' - like the question 'why did and do many people believe in supernatural things such as gods?' - is separate from the question as to whether morality is in fact objective, and the question as to whether there are in fact supernatural things such as gods.

Why we believe things is interesting, but it has no bearing on whether what we believe is the case. So discussion of social evolution and the adaptive advantage of certain beliefs, while in itself interesting, is irrelevant with regard to 'what could make morality objective?'

You and other objectivists here haven't been able to demonstrate the existence of moral facts. And your theistic claim - that there are moral facts that depend on the will of a god - demolishes itself, because dependence on the opinion of any agent is the very antithesis of objectivity, which means independence from opinion.

So, paradoxically, moral subjectivism can actually be genuinely universalist, where theistic morality is intrinsically inconsistent and contingent.

[Skepdick]

I am surprised at your support for established religion! However you are right and since time immemorial there have been specialists who tell people what is morally what.

I am not really supporting it, or opposing it - merely recognising the function of authority in relation to the individual and why authorities/hierarchies inevitably emerge amongst social creatures.

If we didn't need laws we wouldn't create those systems/institutions.

Thought experiment: if there were a personal God Who wants us to claw our ways back to Him, then He'd want us to do so as free men not as slaves to ignorance or other people. A man's freedom is only freedom insofar as he had knowledge, refined judgement, and insight into his own thinking and feeling.

It really depends on whether you read this literally or metaphorically. When you work your way up to morality and an internal locus of control - you no longer require authority, but you become a moral authority. A disciplinarian if you will.

Which is why I (metaphorically) say that I am God. I understand that morality is objective. I didn't understand when I was a teenager (I hadn't become God yet - even if I was made in God's image).

It may be objected I elevate reason too much. But a reasonable man is invariably a man who feels. (NB not every man who feels is reasonable).

Absolutely. Being a wholesome human being is about integrating your emotions and your reason. It's still the locus of control narrative though - either your emotions control you; or they inform you.

[Belinda]

I am surprised at your support for established religion! However you are right and since time immemorial there have been specialists who tell people what is morally what.

I am not really supporting it, or opposing it - merely recognising the function of authority in relation to the individual and why authorities/hierarchies inevitably emerge amongst social creatures.

Thought experiment: if there were a personal God Who wants us to claw our ways back to Him, then He'd want us to do so as free men not as slaves to ignorance or other people. A man's freedom is only freedom insofar as he had knowledge, refined judgement, and insight into his own thinking and feeling.

It really depends on whether you read this literally or metaphorically. When you work your way up to morality and an internal locus of control - you no longer require authority, but you become a moral authority. A disciplinarian if you will.

It may be objected I elevate reason too much. But a reasonable man is invariably a man who feels. (NB not every man who feels is reasonable).

Absolutely. Being a wholesome human being is about integrating your emotions. It's still the locus of control narrative though - either your emotions control you; or they inform you.

I doubt if it matters whether I take stories about God metaphorically or literally. What undoubtedly matters is the symbol, the narrative itself. The metal statue of Edward Colston the rich slave trader which Black Lives |Matter demonstrators toppled over the dock side was a bad symbol and needed to be relegated. But another metal statue 'The Angel of the North' is a good symbol.(I don't refer to the skills of the sculptors.) The symbols themselves may be revered as good or bad symbols. Therefore I'd ask first "What do you mean by 'God' ? "

When the idea symbolised is self discipline then the symbol is a good symbol. Some God narratives symbolise self discipline. Freedom is not freedom without self disciplne. This is because if there is not self discipline there will be discipline through the agencies of outsiders.

I love nature in the wider sense. Therefore I claim emotions originate ideas. However men are not exactly wild animals and we are so vastly subject to cultural influences that it is also important every individual can reason as objectively as he can. Reason is of course always subjective by definition, except in the cases of maths and formal logic which are like specialised/ limited jargons.

[Skepdick]

I doubt if it matters whether I take stories about God metaphorically or literally. What undoubtedly matters is the symbol, the narrative itself.

Well, the narratives are only as meaningful/significant as the significance you give it.

I can appreciate the Abrahamic religions for their metaphorical wisdom and also recognize that they lead to undesirable outcomes if they are taken as literal gospel.

In the end - if you don't allow other people to dictate to you what to do then no narrative matters.

Decide for yourself.

The metal statue of Edward Colston the rich slave trader which Black Lives |Matter demonstrators toppled over the dock side was a bad symbol and needed to be relegated. But another metal statue 'The Angel of the North' is a good symbol.(I don't refer to the skills of the sculptors.) The symbols themselves may be revered as good or bad symbols. Therefore I'd ask first "What do you mean by 'God' ? "

Like - it doesn't have any single meaning for me. I reasonably understand what it symbolises for other people. I use the word differently in different contexts (depending on audience).

In the particular conversation and in the context of objective morality what I probably mean by "God" is the ability to exercise good judgment.
Well-developed, emotionally intelligent, powerful human able to discern right from wrong and act accordingly.. Which in the language of Philosophy probably translates to "the archetype of wisdom"; or decisiveness or something.

When the idea symbolised is self discipline then the symbol is a good symbol. Some God narratives symbolise self discipline. Freedom is not freedom without self disciplne. This is because if there is not self discipline there will be discipline through the agencies of outsiders.

I suppose self-discipline is part of it.

I love nature in the wider sense. Therefore I claim emotions originate ideas.

Absolutely. Inspiration doesn't emerge from the void of human minds - we get inspired by the things we observe empirically.

e.g My epistemology is inspired by quantum physics which is formulated/studied as Linear logic.

However men are not exactly wild animals and we are so vastly subject to cultural influences that it is also important every individual can reason as objectively as he can. Reason is of course always subjective by definition, except in the cases of maths and formal logic which are like specialised/ limited jargons.

There's a thing about us humans, we crystallise our thinking if we can study something ostensively. We must be able to see it, touch it, visualise it.
It's far far easier to study something that's before your eyes, than it is to study it while it's inside your head.

That's all there is to logic/mathematics really. You externalise/express your idea so you can study them. It also helps communicating those ideas (that's what language is for after all).

For example, I understand very well that x^2 + y^2 = 1 is a circle.
But I could never have gained that understanding while the idea of a "circle" was only in my head. You need the geometric + algebraic intuitions to gain a deeper understanding why that exact expression describes a "circle".

That's the way I see Maths/Logic - LEGO for your mind. But that's why I am a Constructivist... LEGO is for construction.

[Peter Holmes]

A contributor here claims that morality is objective from a constructivist point of view - quoting the following explanation -

'According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction. Constructivism opposes the philosophy of objectivism, embracing the belief that a human can come to know the truth about the natural world not mediated by scientific approximations with different degrees of validity and accuracy.' - and adding the following -

'Morality is socially constructed, but it is objective in the constructivist/scientific notion of "objectivity".'

Leaving aside the mentalist dualism, and the evident confusion, here are some observations.

1 That we construct ways of talking about reality doesn't mean we construct the reality we talk about, which is 'independent of human minds'. (Here, it seems to me, constructivists are right - given the mental/non-mental assumption.)

2 That we construct ways of talking about knowledge - what we mean when we say we know things - doesn't mean we construct the knowledge we talk about. (Here, I think, constructivists go astray.)

3 Epistemological constructivism is one of many metaphysical theories about knowledge, all of which arise from the delusion that the abstract noun knowledge is the name of a thing of some kind that can be described. It isn't.

4 That moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality, 'independent of human minds', and are therefore things that can be known, even if only within a construction - is the matter in dispute. So assuming they are begs the question.

[Skepdick]

2 That we construct ways of talking about knowledge - what we mean when we say we know things - doesn't mean we construct the knowledge we talk about. (Here, I think, constructivists go astray.)

Of course it does!

The knowledge I talk about (my knowledge) is acquired via learning. How else could I acquire any knowledge without invoking some mystical answer?

3 Epistemological constructivism is one of many metaphysical theories about knowledge, all of which arise from the delusion that the abstract noun knowledge is the name of a thing of some kind that can be described. It isn't.

My knowledge is a synthetic description of my experiences. What else could it be?

Hence why we have the Constructivist theory of learning ( closely related to Constructionism. )
What is constructivism?

Constructivism is ‘an approach to learning that holds that people actively construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by the experiences of the learner’ (Elliott et al., 2000, p. 256).

Constructivism is Meaning-making!.

4 That moral rightness and wrongness are features of reality, 'independent of human minds', and are therefore things that can be known, even if only within a construction - is the matter in dispute. So assuming they are begs the question.

You are going too far. Human minds are part of objective reality. What's your justification for discarding 8 billion of them?

And why do you insist that the contents of human minds are unknowable?

You know the kinds of things your wife likes surely?

[RCSaunders]

Oh, I think that's obviously not going to be true. The "origin" of a thing determines its purpose ...

Nothing has a purpose just because it exists. Purpose only pertains to ends, objectives, or goals which only human beings have. Rocks, rivers, chemicals, and bears have no purpose except whatever purpose human beings make of them.

Actually, human beings can't GIVE a thing a purpose. They can only "have their personal purposes" for a thing.

That's right. Those are the only purposes there are.

And in such a world as you describe, the very existence of human beings is itself without purpose ...

That's right too!

Human beings have no purpose that is not their own individual purpose. Only slaves have a purpose to other beings.

But you have not said what you think is our origin. You have said it's not evolution, so you must have something in mind, even if only enough to know what it's "not." And you getting that right would be crucial to whether or not what you describe is the case or not. So, whence do we come?

I regard the almost panic desire to know where everything came from a kind of mental defect. I only need to know what is, not how it got here, because how it got here does not change what it is.

I also do not need to know what is true to know what is not true. I do not need to know how life came to be (if it came to be, which, at present, is only an assumption I'm not willing to accept) to know the explanations offered are wrong.

I'm satisfied with Topsy's explanation, who, when asked: "Do you know who made you?" she answered: "Nobody, as I knows on," said the child, with a short laugh. The idea appeared to amuse her considerably; for her eyes twinkled, and she added, "I spect I grow'd. Don't think nobody never made me."

[Skepdick]

Actually, human beings can't GIVE a thing a purpose. They can only "have their personal purposes" for a thing.

That's right. Those are the only purposes there are.

So what's the (personal) purpose of morality?

[Immanuel Can]

Objectivity and universality are separate issues here. My moral condemnation of slavery is universal - which means I think it was, is and will be morally wrong everywhere...

But not objectively wrong, which means only, "Wrong in every place for anyone who cares what Peter thinks about slavery," but not at all "Wrong in any place for anyone who has a different opinion than Peter."

That's relativism. The moral precept is relative to Peter.

But the objectivity of morality - whether there are moral facts - is a different matter. Belief that a moral judgement is universally applicable is entirely consistent with belief that moral judgements are subjective - hard as you find that to understand.

It's always difficult to "understand" something that's demonstrably untrue, of course. One needs a justification for such a thing, and so far you've given none. In fact, you so far haven't been able to name even one precept that was non-objective but also verifiably universal.

IC wrote: I'm pretty sure you don't have a rationale that allows you to speak for what should be the case for slavery world wide, or universally. If you do, I'm quite eager to hear it.

To recapitulate. The question 'why did and do many people think morality is objective?'...

No, look above: that's not the question. The question is, "What gives you the justification to speak for people universally?"

...discussion of social evolution and the adaptive advantage of certain beliefs, while in itself interesting, is irrelevant with regard to 'what could make morality objective?'

Well, "social evolution" does not justify one single moral precept. It might contingently be the case that the human race "socially evolved" to believe certain things; but such things change, and were only contingent in the first place. They easily might have gone otherwise, since no hand guides "social evolution" in the right direction, if you're correct. So when slavery was socially approved, you would have to say it was fine. And where it is today approved, you'd still have to say it's fine. And where Peter lives, but people don't care what Peter decides, you'd have to admit it was still fine.

Not a very ringing declaration against slavery, if that's how it works...nobody's obligated to believe it at all.

[RCSaunders]

Actually, human beings can't GIVE a thing a purpose. They can only "have their personal purposes" for a thing.

That's right. Those are the only purposes there are.

So what's the (personal) purpose of morality?

Since I have no idea what you mean by morality there is no way for me to identify any purpose it might have to anyone. Having seen all the views of morality promoted on this thread, I cannot imagine any of them having any purpose whatsoever in anyone's life.

If there are principles that can be called moral principles, what purpose they would have in any individual's personal life could only be answered by the individual. No one can speak for others, which is exactly what most moralists attempt to do.

The only principles that matter are those that determine how an individual must choose and live if they are to live happily and successfully in this world. Most of what is put over as, "morality," is in defiance of those principles.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, human beings can't GIVE a thing a purpose. They can only "have their personal purposes" for a thing.

That's right. Those are the only purposes there are.

I see. So a person couldn't "discover" his life's purpose; the truth is that his existence intrinsically has none at all, according to your view? There's nothing to "discover," or "fulfill"?

And in such a world as you describe, the very existence of human beings is itself without purpose ...

That's right too!

Well, it seems my question above is redundant. It seems that is what you do think.

Okay, I can't fault your consistency.

I regard the almost panic desire to know where everything came from a kind of mental defect. I only need to know what is, not how it got here, because how it got here does not change what it is.

Well, actually, if God created you, as I believe, it would change all of what you say. Then, life would have an intended purpose, because human beings would have been designed intentionally by a conscious Creator, to achieve a purpose of His. Even you would have to recognize that that would be true, if I am correct.

However, I understand that you have dismissed that possibility, so again, I cannot fault your logical consistency in that, even if I disagree with your conclusion.

Well, so long as you stay consistent with your suppositions in drawing your conclusions, I have no just choice but to accept your decision, RC. And you certainly seem to. Every person has the right to live and die by what he truly believes to be real.

Thanks for clarifying.