Is morality objective or subjective?

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
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: More pointless jibber-jabber...

Post by RCSaunders »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:06 am But the irony however is that evolution is actually the most supported theory in all of science - moreso than any other theory.
Evolution is not a theory, it is only a hypothesis impossible of true scientific verification. The primary tenet of evolution cannot be investigated at all (that one species evolved from another species) and it can never be observed, only conjecture about it from extant evidence (and there is not very much of that). There certainly cannot be any repeated experiments. Like geology and cosmology, evolution is a study of origins, which can never be directly examined.

Compared to the true sciences, evolution is hardly supported at all. The most thoroughly supported of all the sciences is chemistry. What is known about any element in the periodic chart of the elements is infinitely more certain than any evolutionary conjecture. While the latest conjectures of evolution are continuously debated in the community of evolutionists, there is no debate about the nature of the chemical elements among chemists. Some of the evolution is probably correct, but it is hardly the most supported hypothesis in science, and not a theory at all. If there was as much doubt in the field of chemistry as there is in the field of evolution, the nature of phlogiston would still be debated the way the evolution of
eukaryotes from proarotes is still debated. (The latest fairy tale being something called endosymbiosis for which there is not one iota of evidence.) And that is called, "science." Sure!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: for anyone

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:18 pm She does not have to have sexual relations with any man she does not wish to.
That's true for some women in some countries. It is far from univerasally true, even in the Western countries.

How is one responsible for what they have no choice about?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9636
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: for anyone

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:56 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:18 pm She does not have to have sexual relations with any man she does not wish to.
That's true for some women in some countries. It is far from univerasally true, even in the Western countries.
Well, we were clearly speaking about the moral status of "choice." The old complaint is that women are being denied their "choice" or their "control of their reproductive processes," if they're not allowed to kill their babies.

But they have "choice." The choice is whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to murder a human being in order to escape the natural effects of a choice they already made badly.

Now, if you want to argue about women who are forced to have sex they don't want, that's a different issue. That's just plain wrong. It's rape. And "choice" is no longer the issue there. So we didn't even talk about that, since "choice" was the argument.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: for anyone

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:57 am The choice is whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to murder a human being ...
What are you talking about? What human being would have to be murdered?
Last edited by RCSaunders on Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: for anyone

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:21 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:57 am The choice is whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to murder a human being ...
What are you talking about? What human being would have to be murdered?
the bun in the oven
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

for anyone (anyone?)

Post by henry quirk »

Pete wrote: Here's a moral principle: a person should have complete control over what happens to her own body, including her own fertility. And this is because a person owns herself. So forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.

Absolutely right.

Here's the obvious problem: the child also belongs to himself just as completely as the woman belongs to herself.

She shouldn't be forced to be a life support for another human; that other human shouldn't be murdered simply because his life temporarily inconveniences another.

Keep in mind: the child didn't lobby to take up residence in her womb; his bein' there is by way of her actions (and, yeah, rape negates her responsibility, but rape doesn't negate his ownness or that he is in her womb through no fault of his own).

Square that circle.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9358
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

to 'anyone'

Post by henry quirk »

Pete wrote: PH thinks abortion is not morally wrong, because a person should have complete control over her own body, including her fertility - so that forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.

So: what she carries is not a person, yeah?

What constitutes a person?

What makes you a person?

Why isn't 12 week old Felix a person?


...and...


Why should a person should have complete control over her own body?

As a moral realist, I can say why I think this is true.

How does the moral non-realist justify such a declaration?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4917
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Pete

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:07 am As usual your thinking as above is too shallow and narrow.

First an effective Moral Framework and System must be established.
The justified True Moral Fact regarding abortion from the Moral FSK is'
"no child-bearing human ought to have an abortion" period!!
But this is merely a GUIDE as a moral standard.

The justification for the above moral fact is;
-all humans are "programmed" for the reproduction of children to contribute to the next generation to ensure the preservation of the human species.
-if abortion is permitted, moral-wise this is open to all humans universally.
-with this unrestrained option, the human species could 'theoretically' be extinct in time, if every potential child is aborted.
-therefore the moral fact, conditioned upon the Moral FSK is;
"no child-bearing human ought to have an abortion" period!!

But note the above moral facts as a standard is merely a standard only.
There should not be any enforcement of the above 'policy'.

Since the above is only a standard, there is still room for abortion to be carried out but it is always constraint by the moral fact and standard.
Because there is a ceiling standard, this will enable humanity to resolve the problem of abortion at its roots causes and only allow abortion in justifiable unavoidable situations.

Without a justified moral fact of 'Abortion is not permissible' [period!!] there will no fixed goals and people will not be bothered to look at the root causes of abortion and its related problems, which is mainly due to uncontrollable lust and unmindful sex than other reasons.

Those who insist abortion is not immoral, thus do not adopt any standard guide for it are not empirical moral realists. Since options are given for one to decide whether to have an abortion or not, that would be moral relativism.
Okay, what conclusion follows? Since goodness and wickedness can follow from both moral realism and moral non-realism, isn't it rational to ditch at least one mistaken belief: that there are moral facts? Are you advocating irrationality on utilitarian grounds - so that people can carry on justifying their wickedness by pretending their are moral facts? What kind of utility is that?

Yes, moral non-realists and non-objectivists can do bad things. Is pretending there are moral facts the solution?
In the case of empirical moral realism, the only output from the system is good [defined as justified] and never evil.
Whatever moral facts from the Moral FSK they have to be justified to be good [as defined] and never evil.
If people acted evil against the good maxims of the Moral FSK, the fault lies in the evil-laden people.
However an essential features of the Moral FSK is that it must have a "control system" to manage the evil inclined to be good [moral objectives] via fool proof self-development programs that are adopted voluntarily by the moral agents.
Here's a moral principle: a person should have complete control over what happens to her own body, including her own fertility. And this is because a person owns herself. So forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.
Where in the above proposed Moral Framework and System it is mentioned that abortion must be forced upon someone??
Your talk of empirical moral realism/objectivism amounts to nothing.
As usual you are making noise and provided no argument for it.
As I've said, probably more than once: whatever facts we use to justify a moral judgement, it remains a judgement. And others can use the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify a different moral judgement. And that's why morality isn't and can't be objective.
To start with, you have not even provided a specific definition you mean by 'what is morality' to determine whether you are dealing with morality-proper or pseudo-morality.
In addition, what do you mean by 'objectivity'.

What could make morality objective? 2
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

Note the counterfactuals in these arguments - why there are moral facts and how ought can be derived from is;

How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle

Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29864

'Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29868
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: to 'anyone'

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:17 am Pete wrote: PH thinks abortion is not morally wrong, because a person should have complete control over her own body, including her fertility - so that forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term - risking her life - is morally wrong.

So: what she carries is not a person, yeah?

What constitutes a person?

What makes you a person?

Why isn't 12 week old Felix a person?
These questions don't have factual answers. Is a zygote a person? If yes, why? If not, why not?


...and...


Why should a person should have complete control over her own body?

As a moral realist, I can say why I think this is true.
Which means 'why I agree with it'. It isn't a truth-claim, so it has no truth-value. If it were a truth-claim, there would be something in reality whose existence would verify it, and whose absence would falsify it. Can you explain or demonstrate what that thing is?

How does the moral non-realist justify such a declaration?
This is IC's question. Look at the logic. If there are no moral facts, then moral judgements are subjective. So, how can moral judgements be justified, if there are no moral facts?

The question ignores the conditional premise, and denies that a subjective justification for a moral judgement is meaningful or even possible. Instead of waiting for an answer, the question is rhetorical: subjective justification can mean only 'I like this'.

Try this instead: if there are no aesthetic facts, then aesthetic judgements are subjective. So, how can aesthetic judgements be justified, if there are no aesthetic facts? How can anyone say a thing is beautiful or ugly, if there are no aesthetic facts?

Of course, there's a difference between the significance and importance of aesthetic and moral assertions. But the logical flaw is the same.

It need not amount to the fallacy of arguing from undesirable consequences. But when it assumes the consequences must indeed be undeirable - which is false - that's where it's heading.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4917
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:50 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations
From the above 70% of the world's population are theistic, i.e. depend on their morality from a God which issue immutable moral commands, thus claimed to be 'objective'.

The other Moral Framework and System of moral relativism are not grounded and guided by highly credible moral facts.
The moral acts within the utilitarianism-moral-systems are led by a noose on merely desires and what is felt to pleasurable [happiness]. There is no absolute 'ought-not' to restrain anyone who kill other humans because their desire led them to kill and they feel the pleasure, happiness and the approbations with it.
Despite "There is no absolute 'ought-not' to restrain anyone who kill other humans because their desire led them to kill and they feel the pleasure, happiness and the approbations with it." social tradition including that of both arts and science is not only a field rich for the pickings but is also a moral base from which we can create newer and more suitable moral tenets.In connection with tradition history , stories of man's past , is where tradition we find tradition.

Rightly so, we are currently engaged in unpicking formerly received stories and assembling newer and better stories. Historians who work as investigative scientists and also historians who work as interpreters of evidence have methods that act to filter the probable and the improbable.History same as science has undergone paradigm shifts especially as to what history is for. Modern historiographers select evidence and frames from a really big field of inquiry and that can only be truer. We can now look at heroes such as Joan of Arc, or Muhammad, or Jesus of Nazareth, or George Washington from a variety of perspectives, see that certainty is a Bad Thing, and pick out the traditions that work and those that don't work.

Obviously "traditions that work" indicates a criterion to separate what works from what doesn't work. Here science can help, especially ecology. Freedom to live is felt in the innermost heart of each living being, + we now know how species and individuals within species need each other.
I had stated morality-proper is an inherent function within ALL human beings but this function is dormant in most and slightly active and unfolding in some percentile of humans.

I agree traditions, culture, social activities within humanity had triggered the inherent moral function positively within humans over time.

I am sure the first human who was enslaved as a chattel-slave >10,000 years ago would have wished [as a moral sentiment] that he is not enslaved and is free.
But is only after >10,000 years [perhaps >100,000 years ago] that we see some inklings of restraint on slavery, e.g. with the UN Declaration on Human Rights - the Slavery Conventions. Despite that there are still enslavement of humans going on around the world.
There is still a long list of immoral acts that humans has to deal with.

So yes, there are improvements in moral competences since long ago via traditions, customs, conventions, etc. BUT those noted progress in morality are too slow.
Such slowness is very concerning given that there is an exponential expansion in knowledge and technology which the evil prone people can exploit to commit their evil acts.

At present it is very possible with what we have in hand, for a rogue mad dictator could push the "red-button" with WMDs [nuclear and biological] to exterminate the human species. There are other serious threats that could decimate the human species, e.g. rogue asteroids, climate change, etc.

Given the above serious threats, thus is imperative that we need justified moral 'ought' as a stop-gap measure to restrain such serious evil acts. [in contrast to individuals setting their own subjective moral standards]
Therefrom, humanity need to establish fool proof self development programs to increase the moral competence of every individual to the extent they are spontaneously moral without any threats or nudging from others.

To achieve the above, humanity must at this point initiate the plan of establishing an effective moral framework and system with Justified True Moral Facts as guide and standards, thus the need for Morality to be Objective.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4917
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: for anyone

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:44 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:24 pm

Yes, true.

I'm wonderin', though, how the moral non- and anti-realists get the square block to fit into the round hole, after the fact.
Right, and fair enough.

I also note the high-pitched tone of Peter's statement: not just "control" but "complete" control. Not just over "fertility," but also "what happens to her own body" in total. And "should." When it comes to moralizing on the permissive side of this equation, Peter's all in.

But he also says morality can never be taken to be "objective" or "universal." So there's no "should" in it; he can't be saying that all we people OWE it to women to allow this "complete control." He can only be saying something like, "Some women want that," or "Peter wants some women to have it" -- which turns out to be an implication so trivial he will not be able to stand it.

The truth is that he clearly WANTS us to think this is a universal, objective moral imperative. But he also wants to say there are no universal, objective moral imperatives.

Now, there's a circle that can never be squared.
More spin. We make moral judgements - hold to moral principles - universally, because it would be morally inconsistent not to. But moral principles aren't facts, so yoking universality and objectivity in this context is fallacious.
Your 'should' from 'is' prove that you can get 'ought' [should] from 'is'.

Your "moral principles aren't facts" is very rhetorical.
Yes, moral principles are not facts BUT only as how you defined facts [limited and bastardized].
Note you are not a God, to pronounce you have the absolutely authority to declare "what is fact" that is absolutely in accordance to your POV only.
So relatively and contextually, moral principles are moral facts, as justified from a Moral Framework and System.
And there's no such thing as an objective imperative - no such thing as an imperative fact. You're high-pitching yourself into grammatical solecism. And high-pitching? Abortion is murder? If it's legal, it's not murder, by definition.
Why not, the imperative that "one ought breathe else one will die" is very objective. This is empirically verifiable and independent of individuals opinion and beliefs.

PH: "If it's [abortion] legal, it's not murder, by definition"
If it is legal does not mean it is not immoral.
For morality is independent of legal-politics.
Abortion is immoral as a moral fact in the context within a Moral FSK.

Abortion is immoral as a moral fact, is merely a Guide/standard, and there should be no enforcement to prevent people from having abortion if the must or want to. BUT ..

What is needed is for humanity to enable and empower people with self-development programs [moral and others] to the extent they do not have to decide at all on whether to abort or not, i.e. preventing the problems at its roots rather than fire-fighting the issue.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4917
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: for anyone

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:45 pm More spin and misrepresentation. I think a person should have complete control over what happens to her body, including her fertiity. So I think this should have been and should always be the case everywhere. But this is a moral principle I hold to - not some kind of fact. Stop fucking about with what I'm saying to twist it with your projections.
You are the one who is making all the spins till getting your 'knickers in a twist' you cannot unknot.
  • PH: I think a person should have complete control over what happens to her body, including her fertility.
    So I think this should have been and should always be the case everywhere.
If the above is universal to all humans, then I presumed the above would be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.
In that case, it is fact, i.e. a state-of-affairs, at least mentally.
  • PH: But this [as above] is a moral principle I hold to ..
Since 'this' is a fact and a moral principle,
and this fact is dealt within the moral framework to be a moral principle,
then, it is a moral fact, i.e. a fact within the moral context.

Prove me wrong on the above?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: for anyone

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:45 pm More spin and misrepresentation. I think a person should have complete control over what happens to her body, including her fertiity. So I think this should have been and should always be the case everywhere. But this is a moral principle I hold to - not some kind of fact. Stop fucking about with what I'm saying to twist it with your projections.
You are the one who is making all the spins till getting your 'knickers in a twist' you cannot unknot.
  • PH: I think a person should have complete control over what happens to her body, including her fertility.
    So I think this should have been and should always be the case everywhere.
If the above is universal to all humans, then I presumed the above would be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.
In that case, it is fact, i.e. a state-of-affairs, at least mentally.
  • PH: But this [as above] is a moral principle I hold to ..
Since 'this' is a fact and a moral principle,
and this fact is dealt within the moral framework to be a moral principle,
then, it is a moral fact, i.e. a fact within the moral context.

Prove me wrong on the above?
The fact that you can write this and think it makes sense - that you don't understand the mistakes you make - indicates - at least to me - that there's no point in pursuing the discussion. Others may want to, of course.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

The longer this drivel dribbles on, the more convinced I am that moral realism/objectivism - belief in the existence of a moral reality and, therefore, moral facts - is identical in form to supernaturalism: animism, diabolism, theism, and so on.

There's the same irrationality - faith despite the absence of evidence and sound argument - and the same determination to justify the faith. Which of us wants to be, or at least appear, irrational?

I've not seen research into the overlap between the two forms of irrationalism, but I'd guess it's considerable.
Belinda
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:38 am The longer this drivel dribbles on, the more convinced I am that moral realism/objectivism - belief in the existence of a moral reality and, therefore, moral facts - is identical in form to supernaturalism: animism, diabolism, theism, and so on.

There's the same irrationality - faith despite the absence of evidence and sound argument - and the same determination to justify the faith. Which of us wants to be, or at least appear, irrational?

I've not seen research into the overlap between the two forms of irrationalism, but I'd guess it's considerable.
Form the fact Man is a social animal it follows Man is a moral animal.

But Man is a moral animal does not imply Every man holds the same moral tenets.

The question should read Are any moral tenets (or any morals) objective?
Post Reply