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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:13 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:09 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 12:48 pm All experience/knowledge/meaning belongs to a conscious subject and never does it belong to the physical world or object as the physical world, thus all meaning is bestowed upon a meaningless world by a conscious subject. This is so because biology is the measure and meaning of all things. Morality is objectified or bestowed upon the world in the forms of biological extensions namely, norms, institutions, codes of conduct, laws, and social contracts. All these things are expressions of humanity's biological nature. The physical world in the absence of a conscious subject is meaningless, experience in the form of biological reactions provides an aware subject with what is termed apparent reality. The subjective mind objectifies, and it does not occur in any other way.
The problem with saying that what we call facts, and therefore objectivity, are in the gift of 'the conscious subject, is that that's not how we use the words fact and objectivity, which very specifically refer to things that exist regardless of perception, naming and description - such as by conscious subjects. And your last sentence is unabashedly substance-dualist - treating the mind as something different from an object, such as the brain. In what way does the mind objectify the brain? And what distinction is made by the expression subjective mind? Could there be an objective mind? I suggest that you've argued yourself into a metaphysical delusion - that the subject/object distinction refers to something fundamental about reality.
The world is known to you through your body, the physical world alters your biology and this is how you come to know the world subjectively. Perception in its immediacy is truth until there is a reason to question one's initial experience/perception. The subject-object relation is the physical world as object supplying the stimulus to which biology responds to or reacts, and this is the objective world one claims as apparent reality. Apparent reality is a world of objects as conscious subjective knowledge. A fact is an object or the relation between two objects or more and there is no way to prove that physical objects exist in the absence of consciousness or that physical consciousness exists in the absence of the world as object for we can never escape our subjectivity. You've made these baseless charges before; you would do well to try to understand the statements made and forget your preconclusions. Your questions indicate you do not understand period.
And everything you say is portentous, pretentious drivel signifying nothing. So let's leave it there.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:52 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:13 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:09 pm

The problem with saying that what we call facts, and therefore objectivity, are in the gift of 'the conscious subject, is that that's not how we use the words fact and objectivity, which very specifically refer to things that exist regardless of perception, naming and description - such as by conscious subjects. And your last sentence is unabashedly substance-dualist - treating the mind as something different from an object, such as the brain. In what way does the mind objectify the brain? And what distinction is made by the expression subjective mind? Could there be an objective mind? I suggest that you've argued yourself into a metaphysical delusion - that the subject/object distinction refers to something fundamental about reality.
The world is known to you through your body, the physical world alters your biology and this is how you come to know the world subjectively. Perception in its immediacy is truth until there is a reason to question one's initial experience/perception. The subject-object relation is the physical world as object supplying the stimulus to which biology responds to or reacts, and this is the objective world one claims as apparent reality. Apparent reality is a world of objects as conscious subjective knowledge. A fact is an object or the relation between two objects or more and there is no way to prove that physical objects exist in the absence of consciousness or that physical consciousness exists in the absence of the world as object for we can never escape our subjectivity. You've made these baseless charges before; you would do well to try to understand the statements made and forget your preconclusions. Your questions indicate you do not understand period.
And everything you say is portentous, pretentious drivel signifying nothing. So let's leave it there.
AGREED!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

How to demolish an argument for moral objectivity

(Note: a moral assertion (a premise or a conclusion) says something is morally right (or good), or wrong (or bad or evil) - or that we should (or ought to), or shouldn't (or oughtn't to) do something because it's morally right (or good), or wrong (or bad or evil).)

1 Identify the premise or premises of the argument.

2 If the premise is, or the premises are, non-moral, then that premise, or those premises, can't entail a moral conclusion. So, if there is a moral conclusion, the argument is invalid, even if the premise is, or the premises are, true.

3 If the premise is, or the premises are, moral, then the premise or premises can entail a moral conclusion - but that does nothing to establish moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

But if anyone can produce an argument for moral objectivity - the existence of even one moral fact - showing the above claims to be false - please do so.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:56 pm How to demolish an argument for moral objectivity

(Note: a moral assertion (a premise or a conclusion) says something is morally right (or good), or wrong (or bad or evil) - or that we should (or ought to), or shouldn't (or oughtn't to) do something because it's morally right (or good), or wrong (or bad or evil).)

1 Identify the premise or premises of the argument.

2 If the premise is, or the premises are, non-moral, then that premise, or those premises, can't entail a moral conclusion. So, if there is a moral conclusion, the argument is invalid, even if the premise is, or the premises are, true.

3 If the premise is, or the premises are, moral, then the premise or premises can entail a moral conclusion - but that does nothing to establish moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

But if anyone can produce an argument for moral objectivity - the existence of even one moral fact - showing the above claims to be false - please do so.
Still displaying your ignorance and dogmatism on archaic thinking.

As had been suggested you need to get out of your silo and do more extensive research on what is going on related to the subject of morality and ethics in the present.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:56 pm How to demolish an argument for moral objectivity

(Note: a moral assertion (a premise or a conclusion) says something is morally right (or good), or wrong (or bad or evil) - or that we should (or ought to), or shouldn't (or oughtn't to) do something because it's morally right (or good), or wrong (or bad or evil).)

1 Identify the premise or premises of the argument.

2 If the premise is, or the premises are, non-moral, then that premise, or those premises, can't entail a moral conclusion. So, if there is a moral conclusion, the argument is invalid, even if the premise is, or the premises are, true.

3 If the premise is, or the premises are, moral, then the premise or premises can entail a moral conclusion - but that does nothing to establish moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

But if anyone can produce an argument for moral objectivity - the existence of even one moral fact - showing the above claims to be false - please do so.
Still displaying your ignorance and dogmatism on archaic thinking.

As had been suggested you need to get out of your silo and do more extensive research on what is going on related to the subject of morality and ethics in the present.
Still unwilling or (more likely) unable to recognise the invalidity of an argument from non-moral premises to a moral conclusion.

Still stuck with the stupid idea that processing a fact through a 'credible moral framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact.

Still unable to acknowledge the equivocation on ought that your 'theory' depends on.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6215
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:03 am Still stuck with the stupid idea that processing a fact through a 'credible moral framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact.
Unfalsifiable moral fact with status equivalent to scientific fact.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:03 am Still stuck with the stupid idea that processing a fact through a 'credible moral framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact.
Unfalsifiable moral fact with status equivalent to scientific fact.
Yep. Is rigor mentalis a thing? Anyway, perhaps I can claim mintage.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:56 pm How to demolish an argument for moral objectivity

(Note: a moral assertion (a premise or a conclusion) says something is morally right (or good), or wrong (or bad or evil) - or that we should (or ought to), or shouldn't (or oughtn't to) do something because it's morally right (or good), or wrong (or bad or evil).)

1 Identify the premise or premises of the argument.

2 If the premise is, or the premises are, non-moral, then that premise, or those premises, can't entail a moral conclusion. So, if there is a moral conclusion, the argument is invalid, even if the premise is, or the premises are, true.

3 If the premise is, or the premises are, moral, then the premise or premises can entail a moral conclusion - but that does nothing to establish moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

But if anyone can produce an argument for moral objectivity - the existence of even one moral fact - showing the above claims to be false - please do so.
Still displaying your ignorance and dogmatism on archaic thinking.

As had been suggested you need to get out of your silo and do more extensive research on what is going on related to the subject of morality and ethics in the present.
Still unwilling or (more likely) unable to recognise the invalidity of an argument from non-moral premises to a moral conclusion.

Still stuck with the stupid idea that processing a fact through a 'credible moral framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact.

Still unable to acknowledge the equivocation on ought that your 'theory' depends on.
You are still arguing from your silo of morality of narrow, shallow and dogmatic ideological view on morality & ethics.

Btw, I have not seen even one reference from you at all and your authority is merely on hearsays or what you have read or write about the ancients on morality.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 8:34 am
Still displaying your ignorance and dogmatism on archaic thinking.

As had been suggested you need to get out of your silo and do more extensive research on what is going on related to the subject of morality and ethics in the present.
Still unwilling or (more likely) unable to recognise the invalidity of an argument from non-moral premises to a moral conclusion.

Still stuck with the stupid idea that processing a fact through a 'credible moral framework and system of knowledge' produces a moral fact.

Still unable to acknowledge the equivocation on ought that your 'theory' depends on.
You are still arguing from your silo of morality of narrow, shallow and dogmatic ideological view on morality & ethics.

Btw, I have not seen even one reference from you at all and your authority is merely on hearsays or what you have read or write about the ancients on morality.
Would citing an authority on logic persuade you to recognise that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions - which is what makes all of your arguments invalid? I think not. You just don't understand it, probably because you can't - or can't afford to, because it brings down your house of cards in an instant.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

I'm losing track of the various interesting discussions at 'Ethical Theory', so I'm just going to comment at this OP from now on, quoting from elsewhere. I just posted the following elsewhere, but I want to repeat it, to address Alexander's argument that moral objectivity can be understood as descriptive, rather than prescriptive - and that this is what VA means by the expression 'moral fact'.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

We can describe what people think is morally right and wrong, and what people think is beautiful and ugly. And we can try to explain why people think as they do about morality and aesthetics. And we can do these things by making factual assertions with truth-value - for example assertions about history, culture, physiology, genetics, neurology, and so on. VA's mirror neurons are an example.

All this interesting and useful activity is factual and therefore what we call objective.

But at no point in any of this, or as a result of this, can we say 'therefore, it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong' or 'therefore, it's a fact that X is beautiful/ugly'. And yet those are, essentially, the claims that moral and aesthetic objectivists make.

The attempt to defend moral objectivism on the grounds that moral assertions are descriptive rather than prescriptive merely begs the question. For example, the claim 'abortion is morally wrong' is a description with a truth-value only if moral wrongness is a real property that abortion may or may not have.

The burden of demonstrating the actual existence of moral rightness and wrongness as properties is with moral objectivists. And deflecting attention from their failure to meet the burden by shifting the meaning of 'moral objectivity' doesn't work.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:06 am Would citing an authority on logic persuade you to recognise that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions - which is what makes all of your arguments invalid? I think not. You just don't understand it, probably because you can't - or can't afford to, because it brings down your house of cards in an instant.
I think he thinks the house of cards has to go, but I think he's wrong. He wants that word objective. He wants moral facts, not facts about morals. Because he used to be religious and so anything subjective is tainted in the same way as religion. But the truth is his whole project (house of cards) need not fall at all.

He can still look at neuroscience both for human tendencies of behavior and for methods for enhancing certain tendencies. He could agree with your sense of the second form of ought. The things we ought to do if we have a specific goal. He could then propose that if we want a society that is like X, here are some potentials our brains have that could be enhanced and here are some processes (Coming out of cognitive science, pedagogical studies, parenting studies...) that lead to more of behaviors X and Y and less of Z and he thinks that therefore.....

Much of what he has done in his research and in his proposals could all be continued.

He will just no longer have the seeming sledgehammer of objective morality or moral facts when meeting those who disagree. They may have different values or they may think his proposals of the means are wrongheaded. The latter problem is still present and the former problem does not go away by claiming to know moral facts.

All he's doing is alienating people like you and FDP who probably have at least some sympathy for the idea of enhancing human empathy or perhaps some other quality he'd like to enhance. Who could certainly join in a discussion both of how to interpret neuroscience are potentials and also what it might indicate about how to move humans in a certain direction.

But now the discussion with you hinges on objectivity of the whole. As it should. I am not critical of you for not just letting that slide.

I think it feels to him like he has no ground to move forward without his morals being moral facts. But this is a hallucination. He could move forward and potentially with more allies and if not allies then interlocutors who can help him find flaws and weaknesses in his program, rather than on his definition of his program.

I believe this is a perfect example of
cutting off one's nose to spite one's face,
though I will admit I've had trouble with that expression.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:42 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:06 am Would citing an authority on logic persuade you to recognise that non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions - which is what makes all of your arguments invalid? I think not. You just don't understand it, probably because you can't - or can't afford to, because it brings down your house of cards in an instant.
I think he thinks the house of cards has to go, but I think he's wrong. He wants that word objective. He wants moral facts, not facts about morals. Because he used to be religious and so anything subjective is tainted in the same way as religion. But the truth is his whole project (house of cards) need not fall at all.

He can still look at neuroscience both for human tendencies of behavior and for methods for enhancing certain tendencies. He could agree with your sense of the second form of ought. The things we ought to do if we have a specific goal. He could then propose that if we want a society that is like X, here are some potentials our brains have that could be enhanced and here are some processes (Coming out of cognitive science, pedagogical studies, parenting studies...) that lead to more of behaviors X and Y and less of Z and he thinks that therefore.....

Much of what he has done in his research and in his proposals could all be continued.

He will just no longer have the seeming sledgehammer of objective morality or moral facts when meeting those who disagree. They may have different values or they may think his proposals of the means are wrongheaded. The latter problem is still present and the former problem does not go away by claiming to know moral facts.

All he's doing is alienating people like you and FDP who probably have at least some sympathy for the idea of enhancing human empathy or perhaps some other quality he'd like to enhance. Who could certainly join in a discussion both of how to interpret neuroscience are potentials and also what it might indicate about how to move humans in a certain direction.

But now the discussion with you hinges on objectivity of the whole. As it should. I am not critical of you for not just letting that slide.

I think it feels to him like he has no ground to move forward without his morals being moral facts. But this is a hallucination. He could move forward and potentially with more allies and if not allies then interlocutors who can help him find flaws and weaknesses in his program, rather than on his definition of his program.

I believe this is a perfect example of
cutting off one's nose to spite one's face,
though I will admit I've had trouble with that expression.
I agree with your analysis/diagnosis of VA's problem, which is one that many moral objectivists have - the mistaken conclusion that no moral facts must mean moral relativism or even nihilism.

As though, if there are no aesthetic facts, nothing is - or can be said to be - ugly or beautiful.

The delusion that there are moral facts - and that, of course, I/we know what they are - is an understandable misunderstanding. But that doesn't mean it's harmless. In fact, I think it's the cause of a very great deal of human wickedness.

Would-be social engineers like VA, who think there are moral facts, are tolerable just as long as they share my/our moral opinions. But just wait till those who don't share them get into power, like the pro-forced-pregnancy fuckers in the States - and see what a smug-blind moral objectivism enables and encourages.

Think of the damage. Does 'abortion is morally wrong' really have a factual truth-value?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Alexander_Reiswich makes the following proposal.

'It's not possible to say that X is (objectively) immoral, as this implies that immorality is a property inherent to the act of abortion.

However, it seems to me that there is leeway in the way we define morality, which allows for perfectly reasonable alternative approaches.

For example, we can say that "moral" is any proposition that is required to be followed without exception, and "immoral" is any proposition that is required to never be followed, without exception.'

Leaving aside questions about what 'following a proposition' means, here are a couple of thoughts about this.

1 I think it clearer to use the adjectival distinction morally right/morally wrong rather than moral/immoral. And this is because we use the adjective moral in a neutral way to mean 'about or pertaining to morality', as in 'a moral issue'. So moral doesn't always mean morally right.

This does necessitate using the rather clunky noun phrases moral rightness and moral wrongness - but I think the improvement in clarity is worth it. So here's Alexander's proposal as I'd put it:

Any proposition that is required to be followed without exception is morally right. And any proposition that is required never to be followed without exception is morally wrong.

(Digression. VA thinks morality is nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness, but rather the avoidance or reduction of evil. What evil actually is, and why we should avoid it, are supposed to be factual matters beyond dispute.)

2 Words and other signs can mean only what we use them to mean. So we can always use the words morality, moral, morally right, morally wrong, fact, objectivity and subjectivity in non-standard ways. But why do this?

AR and I agree that 'It's not possible to say that X is (objectively) immoral [morally wrong], as this implies that immorality [moral wrongness] is a property inherent to the act of abortion.'

And this is an ontological matter - about the supposed existence of a property - one that moral realists and objectivists claim actually exists, independent from belief, judgement or opinion - because that's what objectivity is all about. So changing the way we talk about this supposed property makes no difference. It either does or doesn't exist. (And it happens not to exist.)

Moral rightness and wrongness aren't properties at all, so they can't be properties of propositions or the actions those propositions cause. We could say they are - but why bother?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3711
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Moral rightness (goodness) and wrongness (badness or evil) are obviously not physical properties of things and actions. At least (and to be cautious), no moral realist or objectivist I've come across has claimed that they are physical properties - let alone provided evidence to justify that claim.

Trouble is - it seems to me - there are only two other possibilities: moral rightness and wrongness are non-physical properties of things and actions; or they aren't properties at all.

And, given the uselessness of the first, the second explanation is the only rational choice. That's why moral realists and objectivists are flat-out deluded.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:15 pm I agree with your analysis/diagnosis of VA's problem, which is one that many moral objectivists have - the mistaken conclusion that no moral facts must mean moral relativism or even nihilism.

As though, if there are no aesthetic facts, nothing is - or can be said to be - ugly or beautiful.

The delusion that there are moral facts - and that, of course, I/we know what they are - is an understandable misunderstanding. But that doesn't mean it's harmless. In fact, I think it's the cause of a very great deal of human wickedness.

Would-be social engineers like VA, who think there are moral facts, are tolerable just as long as they share my/our moral opinions. But just wait till those who don't share them get into power, like the pro-forced-pregnancy fuckers in the States - and see what a smug-blind moral objectivism enables and encourages.

Think of the damage. Does 'abortion is morally wrong' really have a factual truth-value?
Nope, my view is where the reality of moral facts are denied, then moral progress is hindered and not effective as it is evident in the past to the present.

I have stated your views are narrow, shallow and dogmatic.
Re abortion and the pro-life fanatics, your view are so limited, i.e. to the present, not 50 or 100 years ahead.

My approach to the above solution re abortion is two-prongs.
1. With 'abortion is immoral' as an objective justified moral fact and standard [will-to-live] [as a guide only], humanity will have a standard to reduce the number of abortion with allowance for exceptions.

2. In addition, I have the other project,
God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704
In the meantime the pro-life fanatics are grounding their morality on an illusory being, i.e. God who has issued the maxim and command "abortion is evil".

I am confident my thesis 2 will eventually prevail objectively and fundamentally true, thus there will be no [if any, will be very rare] theists to cling to the maxim, "abortion is evil" in the future [not now].

As such, in the future [not now but in 50, 75, 100 or longer] all humans will live spontaneously without any unplanned pregnancies driven by uninhibited primal lusts.
Because 'abortion is immoral' is merely a standard, exceptions for abortion will be allowed in very necessary and warranted to optimize the situation.
Post Reply