What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

There's epistemic warrant and then there's ontological claim. God saying that X is epistemically viable as a reason to believe that X, but it doesn't answer any ontological question about what makes the thing right/wrong. We know that IC cares deeply about this divide, he invokes it frequently to criticise others. So technically the above should be redone with whatever is the ontological aspect that makes the goodness/wrongness/badness a property of the event/decision/outcome/whatever rather than the mere epistemic claim that we should believe X because it is endorsed by a big frightening sky beast. That would only be fair.

I don't follow what you mean by 'epistemic warrant' and 'epistemically viable'. Is this your claim?:

My team's god saying X is morally wrong is a sufficient reason to believe that X is morally wrong.

If so, why? Put it like this. I agree the following is valid:

P1 What A says is true.
P2 A says X is morally wrong.
C Therefore, (it's true that) X is morally wrong.

But the issue is the supposed truth-value of a moral assertion. So assuming it does or can have a truth-value doesn't work.

I'm just saying that IC doesn't like it when you portray his argument that way, and he also tends to make a big deal about the difference between the epistemological calim that we can know that X is wrong becvuase God says X is wrong and the ontological claim that X is a wrong thing. But I can't fix the syllogism because I don't know what the thing is that makes X wrong in IC's terms. All I know is that any attempt to get to the bottom of that question seems to go in a different direction when you aren't looking, as any conversation with IC tends to do.

His P1 is something along the lines of God does know what properties make X right or wrong. After that, I don't know if you are supposed to ever know about that or if you are required to accept stuff on faith. I don't think you as a mortal are supposed to have the capacity of moral reasoning without God's intervention, but the details are obscure because they are hidden behind a man who has nothing to gain by speaking the truth plainly.

Okay, thanks.

P1 My team's god knows if X is morally right or wrong.
P2 My team's god says that X is morally wrong.
C Therefore X is morally wrong.

Even if this is valid, it remains unsound - or not shown to be sound. And I've been asking IC for ages: why would there being a god make morality objective? Why would it mean there are moral facts?

Talk of a god's creative purpose for humans, even if true, obviously doesn't entail moral conclusions. It's as useless as VA's talk of mirror neurons.

P: My team's god created donkeys to be beasts of burden.
C: Therefore, it's not morally wrong to use them as beasts of burden.

P: My team's god created humans to be heterosexual.
C: Therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong.

It's nasty tripe.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have...corrected and presented a valid argument which you ignore because it is too complex for you...

Here is my argument proper:
Premise 1: Humans are programmed with an ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans. [science-biology-FSK]
Premise 2: The ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans is a critical moral principle as guide within a human-based moral FSK.
Conclusion: Therefore, within the conditions of a human-based moral FSK, ought-not-ness to kill humans is to be used a guide only.

As IWP keeps pointing out, humans are also programmed with oughtness-to kill-humans. So why not go for oughtness-to-kill-humans as a moral principle? Try to think very hard.

Humans are programmed with so many other programs sex, hunger, emotions, etc., so they should be considered as moral principles?
What is considered moral principles are defined within a human based moral FSK.
The purpose of morality is to increase moral good and reduce moral evil.
What are moral principles [imperatives] are those related to moral good.

The oughtness-to kill-humans is considered an evil potential which will hinder moral good, thus it is not considered a moral principle [imperative].

However since oughtness-to kill-humans is dealt within the human-based-moral FSK it can be considered as an objective moral fact as negative moral element.

If one were to have reflective thinking and has advanced knowledge of human nature,
it is obvious improving increasing empathy in relation to morality, good will definitely prevails over aggression.

Why is it so hard for you to concentrate on and have a go at answering a question? Try again.

Why SHOULD we increase human empathy?

Why SHOULD good prevail over aggression?

And anyway, why is aggression NOT GOOD?

I have already given you the answer. It is because you are so ignorant you expect me to feed you [knowledge] like a baby.

1. The ultimate purpose humanity as evident is the preservation of the human species.

2. Increasing moral-related-empathy to modulate aggression and evil acts will facilitate 1.

3. Increasing aggression related to evil acts will negate 1.
I wrote before aggression could lead to the extermination of human species especially the trend is moving towards easy to access and cheaper WMDs [nuclear and biological].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Premise: My team's god thinks/says X is morally wrong - or didn't create humans to do or endorse X.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is morally wrong.

This argument is invalid, for any value of X. And its unsoundness is obvious.

And an argument from undesirable consequences, actual or perceived - such as the absence of moral objectivity - is an informal fallacy.

What are you babbling about?

The theist's argument is as follows;

1. Whatever God commands is true.
2. God commands X is morally wrong.
3. Therefore, X is morally wrong.

The above is valid but P1 is an unjustified belief, so not objectively true.

[Peter Holmes]

Premise: My team's god thinks/says X is morally wrong - or didn't create humans to do or endorse X.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is morally wrong.

This argument is invalid, for any value of X. And its unsoundness is obvious.

And an argument from undesirable consequences, actual or perceived - such as the absence of moral objectivity - is an informal fallacy.

What are you babbling about?

The theist's argument is as follows;

1. Whatever God commands is true.
2. God commands X is morally wrong.
3. Therefore, X is morally wrong.

The above is valid but P1 is an unjustified belief, so not objectively true.

What are you babbling about? You've virtually restated my version. We agree that any claim about a god is unevidenced (so far), and therefore irrational.

But you can't meet the burden of proof for the claim that no god can exist. And your claim that absolute perfection is the critical issue misses the mark completely.

[Iwannaplato]

Humans are programmed with so many other programs sex, hunger, emotions, etc., so they should be considered as moral principles?

If we follow your logic yes.

You have pointed to brains have mirror neurons which lead to a certain attitude and presented this as evidence oughtness not to kill is an objective moral fact.
Do you really not understand that we are arguing:
OK, by that logic then this other attitude and oughtness would then, if we followed your logic, be an objective moral fact.

Can you really not see that we are applying your logic to other patterns to show the problem with your logic??????

[Veritas Aequitas]

Humans are programmed with so many other programs sex, hunger, emotions, etc., so they should be considered as moral principles?

If we follow your logic yes.

You have pointed to brains have mirror neurons which lead to a certain attitude and presented this as evidence oughtness not to kill is an objective moral fact.
Do you really not understand that we are arguing:
OK, by that logic then this other attitude and oughtness would then, if we followed your logic, be an objective moral fact.

Can you really not see that we are applying your logic to other patterns to show the problem with your logic??????

The above is a terrible strawman.

I have never argued that the presence of mirror neurons as evidence to the 'oughtness-not-to-kill'.

My argument is as follows;

• 1. The ultimate objective of humans is the preservation of the human species.
  2. By necessity, the oughtness-not-to-kill humans is one neural program in all humans to facilitate 1; this is also very evident.
  3. Mirror neurons triggering empathy [related to morality] is one elements contributing to 2.

Mirror neurons are not evidence for oughtness-not-to-kill humans but merely a critical tool to facilitate 2.
There is a complicated set of inhibitors evolved to inhibit and modulate the oughtness-to-kill is not directed at humans.

This is what I meant by ignorance with arrogance lead to the usual strawmen building.

[Iwannaplato]

Humans are programmed with so many other programs sex, hunger, emotions, etc., so they should be considered as moral principles?

If we follow your logic yes.

You have pointed to brains have mirror neurons which lead to a certain attitude and presented this as evidence oughtness not to kill is an objective moral fact.
Do you really not understand that we are arguing:
OK, by that logic then this other attitude and oughtness would then, if we followed your logic, be an objective moral fact.

Can you really not see that we are applying your logic to other patterns to show the problem with your logic??????

The above is a terrible strawman.

I have never argued that the presence of mirror neurons as evidence to the 'oughtness-not-to-kill'.

My argument is as follows;

• 1. The ultimate objective of humans is the preservation of the human species.
  2. By necessity, the oughtness-not-to-kill humans is one neural program in all humans to facilitate 1; this is also very evident.
  3. Mirror neurons triggering empathy [related to morality] is one elements contributing to 2.

Mirror neurons are not evidence for oughtness-not-to-kill humans but merely a critical tool to facilitate 2.
There is a complicated set of inhibitors evolved to inhibit and modulate the oughtness-to-kill is not directed at humans.

This is what I meant by ignorance with arrogance lead to the usual strawmen building.

You've argued many times that the fact that neuroscience has found mirror neurons in human brains means that the oughtness not to kill is an objective moral fact.
It's not easy to search your posts since you repeat yourself so much, but here's some...

Note I don't make claims of moral statements, opinions, out of thin air, but rather as justified above, my moral facts are based on the inherent moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by physical neural correlates in the brain.

and

Now this true basis, i.e. empathy is related to mirror neurons the physical referent and thus the objective moral fact as proven by science

Oh, and while searching I noticed this...

We have evidences humans are evolving with empathy and compassion for others from ordinary experiences and observations. This is supported objectively by mirror neurons which exist only in the higher animals, primate and in larger numbers in human beings.

They've found mirror neurons in mice, dogs and songbirds also. Many other animals are considered likely to have them. It's not easy to discern them in brains, since neurons are multifunctional.

[Peter Holmes]

Just caught up with a BBC Radio 4 'In Our Time' podcast on Elizabeth Anscombe. It's at 'Sounds'.

Lots of the things we've been discussing here came up. Highly recommended.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001n1yy

[FlashDangerpants]

Just caught up with a BBC Radio 4 'In Our Time' podcast on Elizabeth Anscombe. It's at 'Sounds'.

Lots of the things we've been discussing here came up. Highly recommended.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001n1yy

Intriguing. We've sort of been discussing hte men in her life a lot without ever mentioing her...
I assume this broadcast mentions her husband?

[Peter Holmes]

Just caught up with a BBC Radio 4 'In Our Time' podcast on Elizabeth Anscombe. It's at 'Sounds'.

Lots of the things we've been discussing here came up. Highly recommended.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001n1yy

Intriguing. We've sort of been discussing hte men in her life a lot without ever mentioing her...
I assume this broadcast mentions her husband?

Blimey. Perhaps I missed it. Who was he?

[Wizard22]

It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.

This is a bad argument for two reasons.

1) We can know about morals based on people's opinions, because moral-opinion represents moral-belief, of right and wrong.
2) People have strong opinions, usually AGAINST slavery, especially in this liberal Postmodern Western Era, thus believe slavery to be morally wrong.

To then conclude we can't say which opinion is "correct or true" isn't necessarily "objective" either. You need to explain what Objectivity is first. I presume you mean...objectively-True. But what does that mean, except that, despite a strong opinion or belief, a person can still be (morally) wrong? So how are peoples' collective alignment against slavery, that it's morally wrong, also objectively-false? The opposite implication is that there can be an "objectively-true or correct" argument in favor of slavery. Is there? You would need to present such a case.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.

I think to make the case of an "objectively true or correct" slavery, you'd need to Steelman the argument.
Such as:
Slavery is acceptable, when slaves are treated well by their Masters and properly respected, then, and only then, can slavery be morally correct, true, and sanctified.

But the realistic scenario falsifies this "objectively true" argument. Masters often times did *NOT* treat their slaves well, instead beat, raped, and sometimes killed them...and did *NOT* properly respect them. Because slavery tends to degenerate humanity into devaluing life in general, a slave can be 'thrown away', murdered, freely, and this would not be a crime according to the law, or "morally incorrect" according to subjectivists. They would also argue that it is "morally correct" objectively. So yes we'd be back at square-one.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent from judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)

I think "objectivity" is only realistic when confirmation bias is suppressed on all sides of the argument. Therefore no one opinion or one side can presume itself as "automatically" true or correct. This is a rare feat in humanity. Most humans are not capable of "being objective", since Confirmation Bias is so strong.

People are emotionally invested in their (moral) opinions, beliefs, values. They will fight for them. They will lie, and claim 'Objectivity', while being completely Subjective.

So, perhaps, Objectivity is pure-intuition in the end. You have to "feel" it, and guess at the times when it is "not merely a subjective opinion".

At the very least, you'd need to present all sides of an argument, 'equally'. You'd need to include all perspectives and differences. All contexts.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just caught up with a BBC Radio 4 'In Our Time' podcast on Elizabeth Anscombe. It's at 'Sounds'.

Lots of the things we've been discussing here came up. Highly recommended.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001n1yy

Intriguing. We've sort of been discussing hte men in her life a lot without ever mentioing her...
I assume this broadcast mentions her husband?

Blimey. Perhaps I missed it. Who was he?

Peter Geach - he of the Frege-Geach problem.

[Peter Holmes]

It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.

This is a bad argument for two reasons.

1) We can know about morals based on people's opinions, because moral-opinion represents moral-belief, of right and wrong.
2) People have strong opinions, usually AGAINST slavery, especially in this liberal Postmodern Western Era, thus believe slavery to be morally wrong.

To then conclude we can't say which opinion is "correct or true" isn't necessarily "objective" either. You need to explain what Objectivity is first. I presume you mean...objectively-True. But what does that mean, except that, despite a strong opinion or belief, a person can still be (morally) wrong? So how are peoples' collective alignment against slavery, that it's morally wrong, also objectively-false? The opposite implication is that there can be an "objectively-true or correct" argument in favor of slavery. Is there? You would need to present such a case.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.

I think to make the case of an "objectively true or correct" slavery, you'd need to Steelman the argument.
Such as:
Slavery is acceptable, when slaves are treated well by their Masters and properly respected, then, and only then, can slavery be morally correct, true, and sanctified.

But the realistic scenario falsifies this "objectively true" argument. Masters often times did *NOT* treat their slaves well, instead beat, raped, and sometimes killed them...and did *NOT* properly respect them. Because slavery tends to degenerate humanity into devaluing life in general, a slave can be 'thrown away', murdered, freely, and this would not be a crime according to the law, or "morally incorrect" according to subjectivists. They would also argue that it is "morally correct" objectively. So yes we'd be back at square-one.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent from judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

(The claim that objective moral values and judgements come from a god's commands or a god's nature begs the question: what makes a god's commands or a god's nature objectively morally good?)

I think "objectivity" is only realistic when confirmation bias is suppressed on all sides of the argument. Therefore no one opinion or one side can presume itself as "automatically" true or correct. This is a rare feat in humanity. Most humans are not capable of "being objective", since Confirmation Bias is so strong.

People are emotionally invested in their (moral) opinions, beliefs, values. They will fight for them. They will lie, and claim 'Objectivity', while being completely Subjective.

So, perhaps, Objectivity is pure-intuition in the end. You have to "feel" it, and guess at the times when it is "not merely a subjective opinion".

At the very least, you'd need to present all sides of an argument, 'equally'. You'd need to include all perspectives and differences. All contexts.

Thanks. I agree about the importance and significance of moral values and opinions - at least, for many or most of us. I think that's one reason why we can think there are moral facts - when there aren't.

But i disagree with your view of facts and objectivity - and, therefore, moral objectivity. And we've been flogging these issues in this and other discussions seemingly interminably.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.....

The above is a terrible strawman.
I have never argued that the presence of mirror neurons as evidence to the 'oughtness-not-to-kill'.

My argument is as follows;

• 1. The ultimate objective of humans is the preservation of the human species.
  2. By necessity, the oughtness-not-to-kill humans is one neural program in all humans to facilitate 1; this is also very evident.
  3. Mirror neurons triggering empathy [related to morality] is one elements contributing to 2.

Mirror neurons are not evidence for oughtness-not-to-kill humans but merely a critical tool to facilitate 2.
There is a complicated set of inhibitors evolved to inhibit and modulate the oughtness-to-kill is not directed at humans.

This is what I meant by ignorance with arrogance lead to the usual strawmen building.

You've argued many times that the fact that neuroscience has found mirror neurons in human brains means that the oughtness not to kill is an objective moral fact.
It's not easy to search your posts since you repeat yourself so much, but here's some...

Note I don't make claims of moral statements, opinions, out of thin air, but rather as justified above, my moral facts are based on the inherent moral potentials as a matter of fact represented by physical neural correlates in the brain.

and

Now this true basis, i.e. empathy is related to mirror neurons the physical referent and thus the objective moral fact as proven by science

Oh, and while searching I noticed this...

We have evidences humans are evolving with empathy and compassion for others from ordinary experiences and observations. This is supported objectively by mirror neurons which exist only in the higher animals, primate and in larger numbers in human beings.

They've found mirror neurons in mice, dogs and songbirds also. Many other animals are considered likely to have them. It's not easy to discern them in brains, since neurons are multifunctional.

Strawman again!

PH had been arguing there are no objective moral facts because moral elements such as feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgment are subjective.
The above is based on ignorance and a dogmatic ideology driven cognitive dissonance ..blah. blah ..blah..

My point is,
1. empathy is a critical moral element,
2. empathy is represented by verifiable physical mirror neurons via the biology-FSK,
3. what is verifiable via a FSK is factual and objective,
4. therefore there moral elements that are objective moral facts.

The oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is represented by a much larger complex set of neurons of which empathy with its mirror neurons are a part of.
Since the moral oughtness-not-to-kill-humans is a neural algorithm, it is an objective moral facts only as qualified within the human-based moral FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

I posted the following elsewhere, but thought it worth repeating here.

What matters is evidence and sound argument - not labels and their baggage. And not what people believe. For example, the vast majority of people in the world believe there are supernatural or non-natural things and causes.

My 'kind' of realism manifests in the questions: what and where are abstract or non-physical things, and in what way do they exist? And so far, to my knowledge, answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' have there been none. Any offers, anyone?

Absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe a claim is true is irrational. So I think abstract or non-physical things are misleading fictions, or myths, or metaphors.

I maintain that so-called anti-realists aren't 'anti' reality - whatever that could mean. What they oppose is the claim that any one kind of description of reality can capture the essence or fundamental nature of reality - as though there is such a thing. And that makes me an anti-realist. Hoorah! (Labels and their baggage.)

Now - to moral objectivism - belief in the existence of moral facts. I think there's no evidence for the existence of physical moral things or properties, so that moral objectivism is a delusion - a mistaking of what we say about things for the way things are - which is an ancient and (I think original) philosophical confusion.