Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
Hello! I have come across a rather simple approach to objective Morality, but it seems surprisingly coherent -- not sure if I'm missing something, so feedback would be much appreciated.
Where did you come across a rather simple approach to objective Morality?
And, why do you write 'morality' here with a capital 'M'? If it is because you have arrived at 'objective morality', itself, then just the 'Morality' word with the capital 'M' would suffice, correct?
But I will await your answer as your response might show another reason why you use a capital 'M'
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
Before I get into it, I would like to define subjectivity and objectivity. I think these terms are frequently misunderstood, which leads to many strange notions of what should constitute objective Morality. First, it's helpful to keep in mind that these terms refer to
concepts. For example, the concept of a chair may be objective, but an actual chair is not -- it merely
is (an object). Objective concepts are mental constructs and as such do not exist physically in exactly the same way as subjective concepts.
Both subjective and objective concepts can reference physical objects (or physical subjects). The difference is that subjective concepts include or rely on the
viewpoint of a subject (=an observer that experiences external objects through their senses), whereas an objective concept references the external object itself (and/or its properties and relationships to other objects, etc.).
But HOW could a so-called 'objective concept' NOT include NOR rely on the 'viewpoint' of a 'subject', that is; of a human being?
For example we ALL could be referencing 'morality', itself, but is 'morality' EVER a so-called 'external object'?
If no, then there could NEVER exist an 'objective concept', which in turn would also mean there is NO 'objective morality', NOR 'Morality' here, correct?
If no, then WHY NOT?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
Now, an objective concept is not required to be accurate. If I say that a basket contains 12 apples, but in actuality it contains only 11, then the concept of a basket with 12 apples still remains objective -- it's just not very accurate.
So, what is this 'concept' 'objective' in relation TO, EXACTLY?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
I could even say that the basket contains a toaster rather than 11 apples -- this concept would be inaccurate to such an extent that it can be considered false, but it's
still objective ("objectively false"), because it does not include a subjective point of view.
If, in 'your' viewpoint and concept, some basket contains a toaster, but in ACTUALITY that basket contains eleven apples, then HOW, EXACTLY, is that 'concept' and 'viewpoint of 'yours' NOT a 'subjective point of view'?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
An objective concept can also be invalid. For example, if I were to say that a basket fully covers an object larger than its storage capacity, we would know that this contradicts the concept of containment. As such, this concept would be invalid, but still objective ("objectively invalid").
So in order to be accurate, a concept must map well to an external object.
What do you mean by 'well' here?
The word 'well' does NOT necessarily mean being with 100% accuracy, or even close to 100% accuracy if the truth be known.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
If it maps well to the concept of an object, we can consider it true (i.e. "it's true that a basket can contain apples"). If it maps well to a particular instance of an object, we can consider it factual (i.e. "it's factually correct that this particular basket contains 11 apples").
BUT from WHO'S 'point of view'?
By the way, this leads on to DISCOVERING and FINDING OUT HOW 'objectivity' is ACTUALLY OBTAINED. But anyway, we await your answers here.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
Importantly, the same terminology can be applied to subjective concepts: a subjective concept can be accurate or inaccurate, valid or invalid, factually correct or incorrect, and true or false. Subjective facts make perfect sense. For example, "this particular apple is sweet" can be a factually correct and accurate subjective statement.
AGAIN, it will ALWAYS come back to, From WHO'S 'point of view'?
But I am liking WHERE this is heading, so far.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
If there was actually a very sweet apple in front of you, you might be even tempted to say that this apple is
objectively sweet
Well, to me anyway, this would be a VERY STUPID and ABSURD 'thing' to SAY, CLAIM, or STATE.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
-- this, however, would be incorrect, as sweetness is not a property of the apple itself, but a sensation which a subject tasting the apple can experience.
Based on this misunderstanding, there is a lot of unnecessary debate about whether something like beauty can be objective; the answer is of course
no, as beauty is an interpretation or evaluation of things that simply "are".
And, the 'volume of a container' is ALSO just an interpretation or evaluation of things that simply 'are'.
Also, to me, 'beauty' can be 'objective' as well. But 'you' and 'I' have DIFFERENT VERSIONS of what 'objectivity' or 'objectiveness' actually entails and are ARRIVED AT and/or KNOWN.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
As such, there can be subjective truths about aesthetics, but never objective ones.
Is this an 'objective truth' or 'objective fact', or does this ALSO come from 'your' 'point of view' here?
If it is the former, then WHERE, EXACTLY, is the 'external object itself' here, (and/or its properties and relationships to other objects), which is what you SAY and CLAIM makes up 'objective truth' or 'objective facts'?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
And this in turn leads many to conclude that Ethics must also be subjective.
But why should we be concerned whether Morality is objective or subjective in the first place? Well, due to its nature, a subjective concept is always dependent upon the viewpoint of
one particular subject.
And, what you call 'an objective concept' was DEPENDENT UPON your OWN viewpoint of
that particular subject.
you think that terms objectivity and subjectivity are frequently misunderstood, which leads to many strange notions of what should constitute objective Morality. This would obviously be your OWN personal point of viewpoint or subjective concept, right?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
Inter-subjectivity is a useful concept, but it's merely an aggregate or averaging of multiple individual subjective viewpoints. So for example, a statement such as "I like eating apples" can be subjectively true, and a statement like "humans like eating apples" can be argued to be inter-subjectively at least somewhat accurate. But a statement such as "eating apples is liked" is nonsensical, because a subjective concept without reference to a subject is unintelligible.
In the context of aesthetics, this works just fine: we can think in terms of personal taste and similarities in personal tastes.
But when it comes to Morality, this no longer seems sufficient; after all, the entire point of Morality is to determine what's morally true or false independently from our own subjective opinions.
Since WHEN has the ' ENTIRE POINT OF 'Morality' ' been to determine what is morally true or false INDEPENDENT from human beings' opinions?
From my perspective;
1. There is NO 'thing' that is morally true NOR false. There are, however, behaviors that ARE morally Right or Wrong.
2. HOW, EXACTLY, can ANY of these sort of subjects be DISCUSSED and LOOKED AT IF people's opinions are EXCLUDED?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
This means that the subjective viewpoint has to be removed.
Does your 'subjective viewpoint',
'the terms objectivity and subjectivity are frequently misunderstood' HAVE TO BE removed also. Or, can we remove this 'subjective viewpoint' of yours?
Or, is 'it' in fact a True 'objective concept', which you are actually proving True here.
Could your OWN personal views of 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' also being misunderstood? Or, is this an IMPOSSIBILITY from your OWN personal perspective or point of view?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
For example, if we take a prescriptive statement such as "you should eat apples" and remove the subjective perspective, you're left with "apples should be eaten". Well, by whom?
So, HOW, EXACTLY, was the 'subjective perspective' removed there?
I can NOT see ANY 'subjective perspective' removed from that second quote. What I observe is just a DIFFERENT 'subjective perspective'.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
I'm sure plenty of animals can't eat apples. So what we actually mean is "humans should eat apples". But this is now simply a generalized subjective statement and not objective, at all. Hume's dichotomy prevails, we can't get an ought from an is.
But the 'subjective perspective' was NEVER 'removed' AT ALL, from the outset when you said and wrote, 'and remove the subjective perspective'.
Just maybe your OWN person subjective perspective and viewpoint of 'subjective perspective' is being MISUNDERSTOOD here, AS WELL. After all 'those terms' are 'frequently being misunderstood', right?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
So with that out of the way, let me now present an approach that seemingly solves this issue.
Are you SURE you have got 'that' 'out of the way', YET?
And, by the way, what is 'that', EXACTLY, which you think or BELIEVE is 'out of the way' now?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
The way it works is through a particular method of deriving "rights" and "duties".
Was does the 'it' word here refer to, EXACTLY?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
Now, the classic approach to rights and duties is fairly straightforward: for example, an employer and an employee can sign a work contract. On the basis of this agreement, the employer has a duty to pay the employee and the employee has a duty to perform a certain work. Conversely, the employee has a right to be paid for performing the required work and the employer has a right to the employees time, effort and expertise as per the agreement. We can furthermore conclude that the employer has no right to the employees time, effort and expertise if they do not pay them and the employee has no right to get paid if they don't do their job. Or: if the employer does not pay the employee, the latter has no longer a duty to do the work, and if the employee fails to do the work the employer has no longer a duty to pay them.
The logic of rights and duties is sound and objective
But VERY, VERY subjective.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
-- we don't need to view it from the viewpoint of a subject to make sense of it. It checks out.
However, it only works based on agreement. So I can only be expected to have a duty to do X if I have agreed to do X, and due to me doing X I can then claim a right to Y.
This is not sufficient for objective Morality, because if it was possible for all of us to agree on everything, we would have no need for Morality in the first place.
your so-called 'logic' here seems VERY CONFUSED.
WHO, in the beginning, thinks or expects ALL of us to agree on EVERY thing?
If you have NOT ALREADY explained what 'objective Morality' even means or refers to, to you, EXACTLY, then will you explain 'it' now?
And, HOW, EXACTLY, does 'that' definition of 'objective Morality' fit in with your CLAIM that if ALL of us AGREED on EVERY 'thing', then we would have NO need AT ALL for 'Morality' in the first place?
Also, if you did NOT explain the difference, if any, between 'Morality' and 'objective Morality' above, then will you now?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
However, it seems to me that it is legitimately possible to derive rights without any agreement or subjective concerns. First, let's remember that rights are claims to what others can, should or must do (or can't, shouldn't or mustn't do).
How does this relate to say, the 'right to life', for example?
What can, should, or must 'one' and "others" do, and, what can, should, or must 'one' or "others" NOT do, to you, in relation to 'the right to life'?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
This is necessarily true because agreements can only be made between subjects. As such, I can't claim to have a valid right to not get sick, as this claim can't be made against another subject.
But what has 'getting sick' got to do with 'Morality', 'objective morality' and/or 'subjective morality' to begin with?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
I can however validly claim to have a right that others have to distance themselves from me such that they can't infect me.
AGAIN, WHO is this a 'valid claim' to, EXACTLY?
you MAY NEED to 'get sick', in the beginning, in order to NOT 'get MORE sick' later on. So, getting 'infected', in the beginning, might make you stronger and also 'save your life', later on. And, this is NOT taking into ALL of the other variables and scenarios here.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
If you were to distance yourself from me, we would be able to objectively ascertain that you are therefore respecting my claimed right. By doing so, you would in turn receive the right for me to stay distanced from you -- this is necessarily (implicitly) true, even if you don't claim to have that right. In fact, neither of us has to claim to have any particular rights -- simply the act of us keeping distance from one another implies that we respect each others (implied) rights to social distancing.
Now, a right of course doesn't necessarily have to be respected. But if you don't respect my right, I therefore don't have a duty to respect yours.
Is this your 'subjective perspective and viewpoint'?
And, where, EXACTLY, is the 'external object itself' here?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
This means that even though the choice of whether to respect someone else's right is subjective, the logic of rights and duties itself remains true.
According to WHO, EXACTLY?
The 'logic' of 'rights' and 'what is right', to some, is if someone does NOT respect one's, so-called, 'rights', then then that 'one' still does have to respect the 'rights' of "others".
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
This, it seems to me, is sufficient for objective Morality, because the logic works even if we remove the subjective viewpoints.
To me, it seems like you will say just about absolutely ANY thing when 'trying to' back up and support your ALREADY held onto BELIEFS here.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
So the way a moral right can be derived in subject A is by (objectively) determining whether a claimed right has been respected by subject A in regards to other subjects.
For example, if I respect other people's property, I can make a valid claim to have my property respected.
So, 'this' is ALL based on your OWN subjective views here. That is; if your OWN personal subjective perspective is of respecting other people's property, then you have some 'internal logic', which tells you that EVERY one else MUST respect your property ALSO.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
Consequently, if someone were to not respect my property, I would no longer have a duty to respect theirs.
Talk about 'subjectivity' in its highest form.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
In moral terms we can therefore say that it's immoral to steal from those who themselves do not steal.
Well considering EVERY adult 'steals', then, according to your "logic" here, it is 'moral' to steal from adults.
But I TOTALLY AGREE that it is VERY, VERY Wrong, BAD, and IMMORAL to steal from children.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
But it's not immoral to steal from those who do. But not only that -- we can also determine exactly what it means for theft to be immoral: it means that by stealing, you make it permissible for others to steal from you. Furthermore, this also tells us what the appropriate punishment for theft is: to deny respect of the culprits property rights. Even more than that; we can also conclude what the proper road to retribution is: for the offender to convincingly demonstrate that they will respect the property rights of others going forward, i.e. by giving back what they have stolen, paying a fee, doing community service... whatever it takes to reclaim their lost right to property.
This also allows us to deduce that i.e. cutting the hand off from a thief is not an appropriate punishment, as this punishment can't be logically derived from the offense. Such a punishment would imply that you have a right to arbitrarily decide punishments. Therefore, others can legitimately claim to have a right to punish you for any arbitrary reason -- this is what it means for inappropriate punishment to be immoral.
This is ALL VERY arbitrary and VERY subjective.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
As you can see, this approach is surprisingly powerful,
I do NOT see this AT ALL here.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
because unlike other approaches, it doesn't simply say X is immoral and that's it -- well, what exactly
is immoral?
Considering that you started this thread we are WAITING for 'you' to TELL and INFORM 'us'.
Also, is stealing from those who do NOT steal 'immoral', to you?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
The categorical imperative for example claims that propositions which aren't universalizable or don't view others as an end-in-themselves are essentially immoral. But this is merely an appeal to values, i.e. you should value actions that are universalizable and those that treat others as an end-in-themselves. As such, it's just a subjective evaluation, not an objective methodology. Utilitarianism also has no say on what it means for something to be immoral. What if a utilitarian and a non-utilitarian disagree on a moral problem? What if two utilitarians disagree? What is the appropriate response? These questions can't be answered in the context of utilitarianism because it only works if you subscribe to a particular version of it. In other words, it can only be applied subjectively (or inter-subjectively).
The approach I described above on the other hand works
in spite of disagreement. It's applicable no matter what you personally think of it; hence, it's
objective.
you are joking here, right?
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:55 am
I could go on and demonstrate how it can be applied to moral dilemmas, etc. but I feel this introduction is already long enough as it is. Hopefully I was able to get the main idea across.