Thomas Nagel: Morality is 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

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6394
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Thomas Nagel: Morality is Objective

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:20 am The relevant meaning for 'detach' [re Nagel's] to this topic is 3. impartial or objective.
Sure, but you added detached to objective and now you are saying they mean the same thing. So, either it was redundant or there were nuances involved.
According to the meanings above that is relevant to topic,
being detached and being objective is synonymous.
Then you were being redundant.
The point with scientific exploration is there are two elements here;
1. Obviously there is an inherent and forceful passion to know which is active in SOME [it is dormant in the majority].
2. However, within the process to know and arrive at scientific conclusions one [& all involved] must be objective within a specific methodology [FSK] that is objective.
See you managed to convey the idea without the word detached.
It is the same with the process to establish moral principles that one [& all involved] must be objective [detached as defined above] within a specific methodology [morality-proper-FSK] that is objective.
One of the principle within the morality-proper-FSK [which is detached & objective] must be the development of empathy [positive] to the highest optimality.
Thus the optimal "caring for people" is inherent within the the objective development [unfolding] of morality.

So, the utmost caring for people from empathy should be objective [detached].
Well, 1) it's not in practice. Our emotional biases - for example prioritizing humans over other species - form the foundations of every morality. 2) Objective empathy is an oxymoron, unless you are talking about cognitive empathy as opposed to affective empathy. If you are talking about cognitive empathy, this is not the roots of our caring for others. Cognitive empathy can let us know states of mind of others, but it cannot in and of itself lead to value, such as moral values. Here emotions and desires are the first motors.
The other extreme is where empathy is attached and subjective, i.e. blind which is to the detriment to the individual[s] and humanity. Note the current case of so many people extending their empathy [attached, subjective & blind] to Hamas as "victims".
Hm, generally I hear people extending empathy to the Palestinians, especially children.
Get my point?
I certainly know what you mean.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 11899
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Thomas Nagel: Morality is Objective

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2023 11:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:20 am The relevant meaning for 'detach' [re Nagel's] to this topic is 3. impartial or objective.
Sure, but you added detached to objective and now you are saying they mean the same thing. So, either it was redundant or there were nuances involved.
According to the meanings above that is relevant to topic,
being detached and being objective is synonymous.
Then you were being redundant.
The point with scientific exploration is there are two elements here;
1. Obviously there is an inherent and forceful passion to know which is active in SOME [it is dormant in the majority].
2. However, within the process to know and arrive at scientific conclusions one [& all involved] must be objective within a specific methodology [FSK] that is objective.
See you managed to convey the idea without the word detached.
The point is not about my views but rather Nagel's view that moral objectivity is related to detachment.
You have to read his books on Ethics, e.g. View from Nowhere.
It is the same with the process to establish moral principles that one [& all involved] must be objective [detached as defined above] within a specific methodology [morality-proper-FSK] that is objective.
One of the principle within the morality-proper-FSK [which is detached & objective] must be the development of empathy [positive] to the highest optimality.
Thus the optimal "caring for people" is inherent within the the objective development [unfolding] of morality.

So, the utmost caring for people from empathy should be objective [detached].
Well, 1) it's not in practice. Our emotional biases - for example prioritizing humans over other species - form the foundations of every morality. 2) Objective empathy is an oxymoron, unless you are talking about cognitive empathy as opposed to affective empathy. If you are talking about cognitive empathy, this is not the roots of our caring for others. Cognitive empathy can let us know states of mind of others, but it cannot in and of itself lead to value, such as moral values. Here emotions and desires are the first motors.
The other extreme is where empathy is attached and subjective, i.e. blind which is to the detriment to the individual[s] and humanity. Note the current case of so many people extending their empathy [attached, subjective & blind] to Hamas as "victims".
Hm, generally I hear people extending empathy to the Palestinians, especially children.
Get my point?
I certainly know what you mean.
As presented I understand 'empathy' is solely related to 'morality'. It is like a double-edge blade.
Rather 'empathy' merely facilitate morality in the right circumstances.
Our emotional biases - for example prioritizing humans over other species - form the foundations of every morality.
Emotions are not a foundation for morality.
Empathy in a way is regarded as an emotional response.
All humans has an inherent Moral Function [like hunger, sex, fight or flight, and the like] as a potential which is active to a range of degrees in different people.
Emotions facilitate as drivers and motivate morality in its positive direction.
Skepdick
Posts: 14131
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Thomas Nagel: Morality is Objective

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2023 7:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2023 2:59 am What is detached objectivity?
Being detached and objective allows one to approach a situation without being swayed by emotions or personal biases. It.
One can be detached and utterly subjective.

In fact given that morals have to do with social interactions and social (and antisocial) behavior, being detached is a mixed bag.
Show me! Do the following experiment. For science.

Given that the Logical duality of True/False is the a priori presupposition of objective morality (e.g Truth is Good, Falsehood is Bad) go ahead and be subjective about this. Provide a counter-example. Swap them.

Start subjectively believing that Truth is Bad and Falsehood is Good. Set your life's philosophy towards the pursuit of Falsehood and admonishing Truth.

Start lying to your present and future self.
Start lying to anyone you meet - just ignore the consequences, or pretend they don't matter.

If this is all subjective then you should have no problem going on with your life.

Tell us how your experiment goes.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6394
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Thomas Nagel: Morality is Objective

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:33 am The point is not about my views but rather Nagel's view that moral objectivity is related to detachment.
The point is that if objectivity is the same as detachment, which you have now said. That view of Nagel's is useless.
Moral objectivity is related to objectivity. Well, of course. So either he thinks of them as meaning different things. Or his position is a truism. According to YOU. What you present as what these terms mean, coupled with your agreement with another thinker.
It is the same with the process to establish moral principles that one [& all involved] must be objective [detached as defined above] within a specific methodology [morality-proper-FSK] that is objective.
One of the principle within the morality-proper-FSK [which is detached & objective] must be the development of empathy [positive] to the highest optimality.
Thus the optimal "caring for people" is inherent within the the objective development [unfolding] of morality.

So, the utmost caring for people from empathy should be objective [detached].
And, again, as pointed out a number of times earlier: there are many morality FSKs. And they view empathy in different ways, think it is appropriate and inappropriate in different situations. The way you present this it is as if there is one morality.

[/quote]Well, 1) it's not in practice. Our emotional biases - for example prioritizing humans over other species - form the foundations of every morality. 2) Objective empathy is an oxymoron, unless you are talking about cognitive empathy as opposed to affective empathy. If you are talking about cognitive empathy, this is not the roots of our caring for others. Cognitive empathy can let us know states of mind of others, but it cannot in and of itself lead to value, such as moral values. Here emotions and desires are the first motors.
The other extreme is where empathy is attached and subjective, i.e. blind which is to the detriment to the individual[s] and humanity. Note the current case of so many people extending their empathy [attached, subjective & blind] to Hamas as "victims".
Hm, generally I hear people extending empathy to the Palestinians, especially children.
Get my point?
I certainly know what you mean.
[/quote]
As presented I understand 'empathy' is solely related to 'morality'. It is like a double-edge blade.
Rather 'empathy' merely facilitate morality in the right circumstances
.1) no response about how in the main empathy is not aimed at Hamas, but rather at Palestinians, and especially children. 2) no response to the fact that empathy of all kinds is driving by emotional and desire based urges.
Our emotional biases - for example prioritizing humans over other species - form the foundations of every morality.
Emotions are not a foundation for morality.
Of course it is. Look at the animals that are not social mammals and do not have the mammalian emotional system or mirror neurons.

Empathy in a way is regarded as an emotional response.
Which is what I have been saying.
All humans has an inherent Moral Function [like hunger, sex, fight or flight, and the like] as a potential which is active to a range of degrees in different people.
And all of those have huge emotional contents. They are desire and emotion driven.
Emotions facilitate as drivers and motivate morality in its positive direction.
I notice you did not respond to the fact that emotions drive our choice about what we even bother to make a morality about. The moralities you talk about all prioritize other humans. Because we care about our own. Only very recently have we started to include other species (at least in civilizations) in our moralities. Why? Because we have started to acknowledge that they are like us. AGain, preferences for things like us. Again, emotionally driven and not only driven but created. How should be treat those things that we care about?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 11899
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Thomas Nagel: Morality is Objective

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 2:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:33 am The point is not about my views but rather Nagel's view that moral objectivity is related to detachment.
The point is that if objectivity is the same as detachment, which you have now said. That view of Nagel's is useless.
Moral objectivity is related to objectivity. Well, of course. So either he thinks of them as meaning different things. Or his position is a truism. According to YOU. What you present as what these terms mean, coupled with your agreement with another thinker.
My point here is,
PH et. al. insist morality cannot be objective pending proofs.

I believe morality is objective.
There are many perspectives to objectivity.

This thread is one perspective that 'Morality is Objective' from one specific person, i.e. Nagel.
I do not full agree with Nagel but he have very good points re objectivity.

Nagel is a hardcore philosophical realists, so he does not believe there are mind-independent moral elements out there.
However, Nagel believes in the existence of the very evident moral elements, but understands whatever the moral views it is [inevitable, inherent, unavoidable] from someone, i.e. a subject, thus subjective.

To Nagel, one possible to separate this inherent subjectivity is to establish a state of detachment, i.e. generate an objective self that is separate from the ordinary person in everyday life; this is his thesis of 'a view from nowhere'
Thus when one deliberate on morality from this detached objective self, there can be morality that is objective.

I am not sure about your other points, so I will avoid them, else it is a waste of my time and effort trying to guess what your intents are.
I notice you did not respond to the fact that emotions drive our choice about what we even bother to make a morality about.
Don't forget when we deal with 'morality' the focus must be on the specific moral elements not on a blanket basis.

One example to counter the above.
At the present [at every moment], are your emotions involved at all [are you making moral decisions at all times as driven by your emotions] when you are not going about killing, raping, torturing babies, harming others, etc.?
This demonstrate that morality per se is independent of emotions.

It is only when you are triggered with an awareness of an impulse to commit any of the above evil acts that your emotions are triggered to react either to inhibit [via empathy] or motivate to act out [e.g. in anger] the triggered evil impulse.

Actually when one has to make moral choices and decisions, that is not precisely morality per se.
Morality is about being moral naturally in a moral state that is cultivated from the moral potential.

The moralities you talk about all prioritize other humans. Because we care about our own. Only very recently have we started to include other species (at least in civilizations) in our moralities. Why? Because we have started to acknowledge that they are like us. AGain, preferences for things like us. Again, emotionally driven and not only driven but created. How should be treat those things that we care about?
Nope!
I have always maintained that morality is independent and confined to humans only.
Else there are loads of complicated issues to navigate, e.g.
-humans has to kill animals for food
-if morality is applicable to animals, what about the one-celled organisms like viruses, bacteria, pests, and so on that must be killed and those that we kill inadvertently.

So, it is optimal to confine morality to human only whilst extending optimal care [with rationality and wisdom] to non-human animals and the environment which has an impact on the well-beings of the individuals and humanity.

If there is any semblance of animal acts or states to morality in the human sense, it would be wise [avoid confusions] to label it as something else, and NEVER conflate with the term 'morality' applicable to humans.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6394
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Thomas Nagel: Morality is Objective

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 4:38 am Don't forget when we deal with 'morality' the focus must be on the specific moral elements not on a blanket basis.

One example to counter the above.
At the present [at every moment], are your emotions involved at all [are you making moral decisions at all times as driven by your emotions] when you are not going about killing, raping, torturing babies, harming others, etc.?
This demonstrate that morality per se is independent of emotions.
But that's not how one comes up with a moral framework. I am referring to moral frameworks, because, well, that's what you are referring to. When we decide what is good - in terms of actions and behaviors - we do this from our values. As I've said a few times, there is the example of prioritizing other humans, those like us. The framework comes out of our emotional and desire based preferences. Of course, different groups prioritize differently and focus on different desires.

My emotions may vary in the moment as do my desires, but when constructing a framework, emotions are guiding choices and even the project of doing that.


Actually when one has to make moral choices and decisions, that is not precisely morality per se.
Morality is about being moral naturally in a moral state that is cultivated from the moral potential.
Great, and that will also be guided by emotions. You will have the natural urges to be considerate of others, to not harm and so on.
Nope!
I have always maintained that morality is independent and confined to humans only.
that's exactly what I was saying. For you morality only applies to other humans. For others, with different moral FSKs it relates to anything that can feel pain. There are other models. Each of you coming up with moralities based on emotional preferences.
Else there are loads of complicated issues to navigate, e.g.
-humans has to kill animals for food
-if morality is applicable to animals, what about the one-celled organisms like viruses, bacteria, pests, and so on that must be killed and those that we kill inadvertently.
And here you are making an argument to justify YOUR morality. THE Morality FSK doesn't exist. There are many.
So, it is optimal to confine morality to human only whilst extending optimal care [with rationality and wisdom] to non-human animals and the environment which has an impact on the well-beings of the individuals and humanity.
And that is your morality.
If there is any semblance of animal acts or states to morality in the human sense, it would be wise [avoid confusions] to label it as something else, and NEVER conflate with the term 'morality' applicable to humans.
Perhaps you meant non-humans at the end. Some people think that morality applies even if the other entity - be it baby, developmentally disabled person, person in a coma, animal, ecosystem - is not a moral agent. You have your moral FSK and they have theirs.

I am not saying your framework is wrong (or right), I am saying it is yours and it is one of many.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 11899
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Thomas Nagel: Morality is Objective

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:40 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2023 4:38 am Don't forget when we deal with 'morality' the focus must be on the specific moral elements not on a blanket basis.

One example to counter the above.
At the present [at every moment], are your emotions involved at all [are you making moral decisions at all times as driven by your emotions] when you are not going about killing, raping, torturing babies, harming others, etc.?
This demonstrate that morality per se is independent of emotions.
But that's not how one comes up with a moral framework. I am referring to moral frameworks, because, well, that's what you are referring to. When we decide what is good - in terms of actions and behaviors - we do this from our values. As I've said a few times, there is the example of prioritizing other humans, those like us. The framework comes out of our emotional and desire based preferences. Of course, different groups prioritize differently and focus on different desires.

My emotions may vary in the moment as do my desires, but when constructing a framework, emotions are guiding choices and even the project of doing that.
Are objective scientific facts within the Framework of science, the scientific FSK, e.g. 'water is H20' driven by emotions?
Surely you understand the scientific FSK cannot be driven by emotions in principle.
I have insisted the morality-proper FSK is of near equivalent to the scientific FSK.
As such, the objective moral facts from the Moral Framework or FSK cannot be driven by emotions [subjective].

Your
"The framework comes out of our emotional and desire based preferences."
is something else, not pertaining to an objective moral FSK.
Actually when one has to make moral choices and decisions, that is not precisely morality per se.
Morality is about being moral naturally in a moral state that is cultivated from the moral potential.
Great, and that will also be guided by emotions. You will have the natural urges to be considerate of others, to not harm and so on.
No, 'that' is not guided by emotions.
It is the moral potential that is objective, i.e. an objective moral fact.

It is the manifested acts from the moral potential that is guided by emotions.

Analogy:
All humans has the objective hunger potential represented by neural algorithms in the body and brain.
However, what and how and person consume food to satisfy his hunger is driven by emotions and other variables.
See the difference?

Another analogy is the sexual potential in all animals which is objective.
How sex is expressed as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual are determined by different variable and the types of perversions could be determined and driven by emotions and other subjective variables.

Similarly, there is the objective moral potential or function represented by physical neurons and algorithms which is different from the manifesting impulses of ethical-related acts which could be driven by subjective emotions and other variables.

Get it?
I doubt you will.


Nope!
I have always maintained that morality is independent and confined to humans only.
that's exactly what I was saying. For you morality only applies to other humans. For others, with different moral FSKs it relates to anything that can feel pain. There are other models. Each of you coming up with moralities based on emotional preferences.
Else there are loads of complicated issues to navigate, e.g.
-humans has to kill animals for food
-if morality is applicable to animals, what about the one-celled organisms like viruses, bacteria, pests, and so on that must be killed and those that we kill inadvertently.
And here you are making an argument to justify YOUR morality. THE Morality FSK doesn't exist. There are many.
So, it is optimal to confine morality to human only whilst extending optimal care [with rationality and wisdom] to non-human animals and the environment which has an impact on the well-beings of the individuals and humanity.
And that is your morality.
If there is any semblance of animal acts or states to morality in the human sense, it would be wise [avoid confusions] to label it as something else, and NEVER conflate with the term 'morality' applicable to humans.
Perhaps you meant non-humans at the end. Some people think that morality applies even if the other entity - be it baby, developmentally disabled person, person in a coma, animal, ecosystem - is not a moral agent. You have your moral FSK and they have theirs.

I am not saying your framework is wrong (or right), I am saying it is yours and it is one of many.
I stated for pragmatic sake, it is most effective to ensure morality per se is confined to humans only else there are complicated problems as stated above.
Morality, pragmatically, should be confined to humans, any normal human, be it baby, developmentally disabled person, person in a coma, even fetus.
Post Reply