Can any moral document be objective?

[BeHereNow]

From another thread:

Wouldn't it be nice to have a nice objective handbook for everyone to have?

First part: Can any moral or religious document be objective in the values it presents? Please explain.
Part two (optional): If you answered yes, you may chose any particular document and defend it as being objective.
If you answered no, you may choose any particular document and use it as an example of why moral documents are subjective.
Part three (optional): If you answered no objective document is possible, but it were magically possible, would you want it?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

You are appealing to the beliefs of people - that's subjectivism. You are affirming my thesis and undermining yours.

You are objectively claiming I am speaking subjectively. You don’t get to have it both ways. Objectivism appeals to reason over feeling. If there was not existence of objective truth we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. You are affirming my thesis and undermining yours.

Morality can be recognized as right or good behavior. If I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong or that there is no right or wrong, then I must conclude I don’t know what I should do. Morality delivers objective conclusions. We all live in the same world with set natural laws. We are all subject to these laws. Since science can identify objective truths, we can use those truths to determine right/wrong. 2+2=4 and it is wrong to torture babies. These are both objective truths.

Oh? Prove it is an objective truth. Looks subjective to me.

Really? Show me how torturing babies is subjective.

[Bust Nak]

You are objectively claiming I am speaking subjectively.

Sure, more specifically, I am claiming it is objectively true that an appeal to personal beliefs is an appeal to subjectivism.

You don’t get to have it both ways.

Why not? Is it not objectively true that taste is subjective? Is it not objectively true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? So why can't it be objectively true that you were speaking subjectively?

Objectivism appeals to reason over feeling.

That's not it at all. It is appeals to facts over feelings, because you can give reasons for subjective feelings too, consider the following example: I feel pop music is best for the reason that they are easy to sing along to.

If there was not existence of objective truth we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

Again with this strawman. Nobody here has denied the existence of objective truth.

Morality can be recognized as right or good behavior. If I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong or that there is no right or wrong, then I must conclude I don't know what I should do.

That's moot since I don't believe that at all. I believe I can easily know right from wrong and I believe that there is a right and wrong. On top of that I am saying right and wrong is subjective. You seem to be under the impression that subjectivism is a denial of morality, that's not what subjectivism is.

Morality delivers objective conclusions. We all live in the same world with set natural laws. We are all subject to these laws. Since science can identify objective truths, we can use those truths to determine right/wrong. 2+2=4 and it is wrong to torture babies. These are both objective truths.

Oh? Prove it. Prove that it is an objective truth that it is wrong to torture babies. Meanwhile I can prove 2+2=4 for myself by adding 2 apples to a basket with 2 apples and count that there are 4 apples in total.

Really? Show me how torturing babies is subjective.

Already done that in my original post, repeated here and elaborated on for your continence:

Values are inherently subjective because there is no value without an evaluation, and no evaluation without an evaluator. What depends on an evaluator, is by definition subjective. The rights and wrongs of baby torture, is a matter of value placed on the wellbeing of babies, it follows logically that the rights and wrongs of baby torture is therefore subjective. Easy enough to follow, no?

In short, my premises are:
1) If X depends on an evaluator then X is subjective.
2) Right and wrong depends on an evaluator.

If both of these are true then it follows trivially that right and wrong are subjective. Which of these premises do you want to dispute?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Sure, more specifically, I am claiming it is objectively true that an appeal to personal beliefs is an appeal to subjectivism.

Is that objectively true or is that your personal belief?

Why not? Is it not objectively true that taste is subjective?

Again – morality is not taste. I’m afraid that’s what you’ve dubbed it.

Is it not objectively true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Not really. Beauty is that which when perceived; pleases.


************************************
The fact that men disagree over what is beautiful in no way denies the existence of objective beauty. After all, it seems that if two men are gazing at the sunset, and one mutters “awesome�, while the other scoffs “foul�, it could be equally true that one of them is simply wrong as it could that there is no such thing as beauty.

To deny objective beauty is to deny the existence of “that which when perceived; pleases.� But if you deny this existence, you have to account for the fact that indeed – men perceive and are pleased. This is the point where the relativist will say, “Ah, but it is all subjective.� But what is subjective? Beauty? You cannot apply the adjective ‘subjective’ to a noun you’ve claimed does not exist. It becomes entirely nonsensical: “That-which-when-perceived-pleases does not exist, and is defined by me.� This silliness is besides the fact that to deny the existence of Beauty by this logic – that because men disagree with it, it is subjective – is to deny Truth by the same logic. And then the question remains, “Are you truly saying that beauty is subjective, when there exists no beauty and no truth?�

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholi ... ctive.html

So why can't it be objectively true that you were speaking subjectively?

Because it is self contradicting.

I believe I can easily know right from wrong and I believe that there is a right and wrong. On top of that I am saying right and wrong is subjective.

Illogical. If you admit there is right and wrong and that it is something man can know, then it isn’t subjective. You are declaring it objective.

Prove that it is an objective truth that it is wrong to torture babies.

Why don’t you just try to tell me in your own words why it is ok to torture babies.

Quote:
Really? Show me how torturing babies is subjective.

Already done that in my original post, repeated here and elaborated on for your continence:

Values are inherently subjective because there is no value without an evaluation
and no evaluation without an evaluator. What depends on an evaluator, is by definition subjective. The rights and wrongs of baby torture, is a matter of value placed on the wellbeing of babies, it follows logically that the rights and wrongs of baby torture is therefore subjective. Easy enough to follow, no?

No, why do we place value on babies? Why do we care about the well being of babies in the first place? You have made the assumption that we do. Is that a subjective or objective assumption?

In short, my premises are:
1) If X depends on an evaluator then X is subjective.

Not if that standard is external to us. We aren’t inventing or creating the standard. The standard exists – we are simply acknowledging it.

2) Right and wrong depends on an evaluator.

Is that right? How can I know what you are saying is right? I disagree with your evaluation. If you want to persuade me or others to agree with your evaluation, you would first have to admit your claim is based on something other than yourself as an evaluator.

If both of these are true then it follows trivially that right and wrong are subjective. Which of these premises do you want to dispute?

I already disputed both. And again, please in your own words explain to me when it is acceptable to torture babies. I’m curious.

[Bust Nak]

Is that objectively true or is that your personal belief?

Both.

Again – morality is not taste. I’m afraid that’s what you’ve dubbed it.

I didn't say morality is taste, I was objecting to your comment that you can't have both when you clearly can - objectively, taste is subjective.

Not really. Beauty is that which when perceived; pleases.

If you denying subjective beauty, do you think anything at all is subjective? Food taste? Music taste?

The fact that men disagree over what is beautiful in no way denies the existence of objective beauty. After all, it seems that if two men are gazing at the sunset, and one mutters “awesome�, while the other scoffs “foul�, it could be equally true that one of them is simply wrong as it could that there is no such thing as beauty.

Right, but I am not appealing to agreement or disagreement here, even if everyone agree on a beautiful sunset, it still doesn't make beauty objective. What you / the author stated here is irrelevant to my thesis.

To deny objective beauty is to deny the existence of “that which when perceived; pleases.�

What makes you think that / agree with that blog entry? There is a huge difference between denying objective beauty and denying the existence of beauty.

This is the point where the relativist will say, “Ah, but it is all subjective.� But what is subjective? Beauty?

Exactly.

You cannot apply the adjective ‘subjective’ to a noun you’ve claimed does not exist.

That's moot since beauty exists.

And then the question remains, “Are you truly saying that beauty is subjective, when there exists no beauty and no truth?�

No, I am not saying that at all. Time and time I again I've point out I am not denying the existence of truth; and just in case it come up again, I am explicitly affirming the existence of truth; and the existence of beauty; and of morality; and of taste. I am also saying that truth is objective; while beauty, morality and taste is subjective.

Because it is self contradicting.

Oh? Prove it. Generate "A and not A" from the things I stated.

If you admit there is right and wrong and that it is something man can know, then it isn’t subjective.

False by counter-example: Food taste is subjective, food taste exist and it is something man can know.

Why don’t you just try to tell me in your own words why it is ok to torture babies.

Because that wouldn't resolve the issue one way or the other and is irrelevant to the debate.

No, why do we place value on babies? Why do we care about the well being of babies in the first place?

Because that's what we subjectively prefer.

You have made the assumption that we do. Is that a subjective or objective assumption?

Could you clarify this question? What does subjective assumption and objective assumption mean?

Not if that standard is external to us. We aren’t inventing or creating the standard. The standard exists – we are simply acknowledging it.

If that standard is external to us, then it doesn't depend on us. What you said here is not relevant to my statement which begins with "If X depends on an evaluator..." it only refers to standards that does depend on someone.

Is that right? How can I know what you are saying is right?

By this simple mental exercise: what is the worth of a $30 note, if no one wants $ (and the paper the note is painted on.)

I disagree with your evaluation.

Facts are not something for you to agree or disagree on.

If you want to persuade me or others to agree with your evaluation, you would first have to admit your claim is based on something other than yourself as an evaluator.

That's easy - I affirm that my objective claims are based on something other than myself as an evaluator.

And again, please in your own words explain to me when it is acceptable to torture babies. I’m curious.

But I don't think it is acceptable to torture babies.

[bluethread]

When it comes to morality the objective/subjective dichotomy is a false choice. Morality is a social construct. It is contractual, either presumed or explicit. I, therefore, hold that all true morality is constitutional. Those who argue for an intrinsic morality are attempting a cheap cheat, because they do not wish to examine the true basis of their moral standards.

Morality is either intrinsic or not intrinsic, this is a true dichotomy and the law of excluded middle applies here. Sounds like your stance is that morality is not intrinsic - that is moral subjectivism.

That dichotomy is a mental construct that incorporates human nature. Absolutist morality would be objective and immutable. Personal morality would be subject to nature/nurture. Some would be inherent within a species, i.e. proliferation and preservation of one's posterity. Other parts are not, i.e. don't steal. Social morality, which is what we are really talking about, is a combination of implicit and explicit contracts.

When one attempts to frame social morality as absolute or personal morality, one is cheating the argument. Certain tenets can be established by various means as unquestionable and others can be practically ignored. For example, it is implied by those who hold to Absolutist morality that we are only talking about humans, unless one wishes to anthropomorphize other life forms. The problem is that a morality that only applies to humans is not really absolute. Also, it is implied by those who hold to a personal morality that there is a basic set of tenets held by all "civilized" humans. The problem is that this basic set of tenets is treated as immutable and any questioning of it is rejected out of hand.

Those are the reasons why I assert that the only actual morality is contractual morality, not personally subjective or absolute. Thus, it is proper to require one to present the implicit or explicit contract that supports one's moral standards.

[Bust Nak]

I agree with much of what you stated but want to comment on this:

Also, it is implied by those who hold to a personal morality that there is a basic set of tenets held by all "civilized" humans. The problem is that this basic set of tenets is treated as immutable and any questioning of it is rejected out of hand.

We as subjectivist get to do that exactly because morality is personal, there is no questioning a person's subjective feelings. We feel a certain way and that's all there is to it. The basic set of tenets is as immutable as an individual feel it to be. It's not a cheat, but a feature, a perk even, of subjectivism.

[Subjectivity]

Yes. We learn by observation. It is a scientific approach. If a dog walks into a room, we can conclude that a dog walked into the room, even if one person didn’t see it or saw what they thought was something else. The scientific consensus shows a dog walked into the room. This does not mean the group decided that a dog walked into the room or constructed that a dog walked into a room. The scientific approach of observation merely confirms it.

Science is not the objective observer you seem to suggest it is. It's simply the closest thing we've got, the least subjective method for evaluating claims that humanity has managed to produce. The scientific method is a process by which scientists evaluate evidence to determine the probability that a claim is true. Though the scientific method is constructed to be minimally subjective, it does not empower the scientist to objectively observe reality. Rather, it is used to assess hypotheses for the probability that they may accurately describe reality. The most plausible of these hypotheses are called theories. Theories are those hypotheses found plausible by scientific consensus—plausible, not true. They are best explanations of reality, not revelations of truth, and that's the closest science can get us to understanding reality.

The question posed in this thread is "Can any moral document be objective?". It is not "Can humanity come to consensus about what is right and wrong or in its best interest?". Consensus agreement is not the same as objective understanding. Science can get us to consensus agreement; objective understanding is something that subjective observers, by the subjectivity inherent in their ability to sense, observe, and reason, cannot test for. If we could, we'd have no need for science.

Experience is, but the fact that the heart pumps blood is not subjective, eating more calories than one burns causes weight gain is not subjective, children from fatherless homes are more likely to be poor or become involved in drugs is not subjective, etc.

All of the information that you have access to is filtered through your experience. You don't have access to information outside of your own experience of reality. It may be objectively true that the heart pumps blood, but information about that is not available to you in an objective form. The most you can do is to accept your best understanding of reality.

I do not think I have made that error. Is it intellectually honest to suggest rape could ever be right/good? Who has decided that it is wrong to eat too much food and then make oneself throw up? Isn’t it intellectually dishonest to pretend that is simply a social construct rather than a moral truth and something all men can know? And how do we know it? By acknowledging the way the world works, by observing man and his relationship with this world we live in, by using reason and logic, science, and facts.

I didn't claim that morality is simply a social construct. That may be one factor influencing the way in which a person develops their sense of morality, and there may be others such as whether or not a person has the capacity to empathize. No, it is not intellectually dishonest to examine where our understanding of reality comes from. We are so adept at reasoning that we are sometimes able to rationalize the irrational. We are unreliable observers, fooled by illusions and inaccurate recollections of past experiences. Even if only for these reasons, when a person comes along claiming objective understanding of reality, it should immediately set off red flags.

You ask me if it is intellectually honest to suggest rape could ever be right/good. Yes, it is, and it would be intellectually dishonest to outright dismiss a claim without first evaluating the evidence for it. You may end up giving little weight to the evidence—you may even give no weight to the evidence—but to outright dismiss a claim on any basis is a poor rationale.

The first reason why I haven't bitten whenever you've asked to be provided with examples of people who believe rape is justified is that the question being posed by this thread is not about what people believe to be moral or immoral but rather what, if anything, can be shown to be morally true in an absolute sense. As I've already pointed out, what is true is true whether 100% or 0% of people believe it to be true let alone have even conceptualized it. There's a place for the argument you are making, but to my mind it is not here in this thread where we are debating on the objectivity of morality. Is what people believe about reality relevant to a discussion in which we are attempting to examine the nature of reality, itself?

The second reason why I haven't bitten whenever you've asked to be provided with examples of people who believe rape is justified is this statement you made which I've quoted once before and will quote again.

Show me a culture that values rape. Also, even if you could find some subculture that engaged in rape, THAT wouldn’t mean rape is right or good. It would simply mean that culture is wrong. All people can know right from wrong, regardless of religion.

You ask to be provided with examples of cultures that find rape justifiable. As irrelevant as that information would be to the discussion, it's made even more irrelevant by the fact that in the next breath, you deem unworthy of your consideration a priori any such example that could be provided. You have decided in advance of their presentation not to weigh the evidence for or evaluate the reasoning behind competing moral positions. You are justified in doing so because when you wield objective knowledge of moral truths, you are the moral authority; you already possess the answers on questions of morality, and this self-righteousness sets you above the need to evaluate new claims by way of observation, logic, reason, and the scientific method—the very tools for understanding that you purport to have utilized in your uncovering of said moral truths.

But there may be something you are misunderstanding about science: science doesn't uncover truth. It doesn't prove things. Scientists use the scientific method to determine the plausibility (not truth or falsity) of a hypothesis by testing whether it reproducibly and repeatedly predicts the outcomes of carefully constructed experiments. There doesn't come a time when the scientific community decides that it has found the answer to a question and need no longer evaluate completing claims. No person who calls himself a scientist can dismiss evidence for a claim outright without first evaluating it, even if that claim doesn't reconcile with the current views of science. In fact, science sometimes produces competing theories on the same question which, while incompatible with one another, each work reliably. In this scenario, scientists may choose to align themselves with the views of one camp or another, but do so after evaluating the plausibility of each theory on the question.

Whatever tool of understanding it was that imparted you with an objective understanding of morality, it was not science, because science does not do that. Maybe you can share with me the manner by which you acquired what is an understanding of universal moral truths and not simply a pragmatic evaluation of what is in humanity's best interest to give moral consideration to.

Rape, oppression are wrong regardless of any group or individual you could find to argue otherwise.

I'm trying to find out if you see a distinction between a reasoned conclusion and what is objectively true. How was it revealed to you that your reasoned conclusion on the immorality of rape was reflective of an objective moral truth about the immorality of rape?

[bluethread]

I agree with much of what you stated but want to comment on this:

Also, it is implied by those who hold to a personal morality that there is a basic set of tenets held by all "civilized" humans. The problem is that this basic set of tenets is treated as immutable and any questioning of it is rejected out of hand.

We as subjectivist get to do that exactly because morality is personal, there is no questioning a person's subjective feelings. We feel a certain way and that's all there is to it. The basic set of tenets is as immutable as an individual feel it to be. It's not a cheat, but a feature, a perk even, of subjectivism.

That is why it has no place in social morality apart from a personal position one takes in attempting to influence public policy. Though personal morality is valuable to the individual, it is of little value to anyone else, since it can turn on a dime for any reason, or no reason at all. True morality is that which is agreed to and/or enforced by a society. Constitutional morality is even better, because a constitutional society places constraints on the nature of moral instability and change.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

RightReason wrote:


Is that objectively true or is that your personal belief?

Both.

Your statement is illogical and meaningless. If something is objective than it isn’t subjective and vice versa.

objectively, taste is subjective.

Again, morality is not taste. We are talking about morality. And no, objectively speaking, morality is not subjective.

I am not denying the existence of truth;

You keep saying that, but in fact you are denying the existence of moral truth --which is illogical. I am saying knowing what is right/good vs. bad/wrong is not subjective, rather it is determined via observation of man and man’s relationship with the world he lives in. It isn’t about tastes as you keep bringing up. It is not my taste or feeling that there is an order to our digestive system – that human beings eat food, which contain calories, which are then digested. That’s just the way the world works. And THAT is why and how we know that eating food to nourish the body is right and good and how we know someone eating food and then vomiting it up so as to avoid the natural consequences (calories) of the food he/she eats is wrong or not the proper order(disordered). We can quite logically observe bulimia is not how the body was intended to work. It isn’t a matter of taste (no pun intended) or personal preference that bulimia is wrong. It’s wrong based on science, observation of function, knowledge of man and knowledge of the world we live in and man’s relationship with this world. It’s wrong not by our choice, rather by standards external to us.

Because that wouldn't resolve the issue one way or the other and is irrelevant to the debate.[/quote]

Why is it irrelevant? Sounds like it should be very easy. What are you afraid of? Please let me know why it is ok to torture babies. If morality is so subjective, it should be easy to explain.

Because that's what we subjectively prefer.

How do you know it’s not because it is an objective truth that all recognize? Do we know that bulimia is wrong and label it a disorder because we subjectively prefer to not engage in the behavior? Or do we objectively know it is wrong based on external standards of the world we live in? Are you seriously ignoring the elephant in the room? The things we know are right and good vs. wrong and bad in this world are not matters of opinion, rather matters of observation.

If that standard is external to us, then it doesn't depend on us. What you said here is not relevant to my statement which begins with "If X depends on an evaluator..." it only refers to standards that does depend on someone.

Exactly. Who said moral truth depends on us? You made my point.

Facts are not something for you to agree or disagree on.

Exactly. Again you make my point. Just as I’ve been saying moral truth is based on facts. Therefore you don’t have to agree or disagree with it – it just IS. No one votes or invents moral truth. We simply acknowledge it.

That's easy - I affirm that my objective claims are based on something other than myself as an evaluator.

Great! So do I. So, what is your “objective claim� that morality is subjective based on?

But I don't think it is acceptable to torture babies.

Of course you don’t. Nobody does! Because it is an objective truth that all men recognize. If you didn’t recognize it, you would be able to easily explain to me when it is acceptable to torture babies. I’m still waiting.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 27 by Subjectivity]

The question posed in this thread is "Can any moral document be objective?". It is not "Can humanity come to consensus about what is right and wrong or in its best interest?"

I agree. Moral truth is not simply a consensus about right and wrong. As I originally answered the original question, I said Yes, a moral document can be objective.

. Consensus agreement is not the same as objective understanding. Science can get us to consensus agreement; objective understanding is something that subjective observers, by the subjectivity inherent in their ability to sense, observe, and reason, cannot test for. If we could, we'd have no need for science.

I agree again. Good thing morality is not consensus agreement.

The most you can do is to accept your best understanding of reality.

<sigh> not this again. Back to the, “Does anyone really know if we are even here� You live in the same world I do. Apples fall from trees, the sun rises and sets, human beings fall in love.

We are unreliable observers, fooled by illusions and inaccurate recollections of past experiences. Even if only for these reasons, when a person comes along claiming objective understanding of reality, it should immediately set off red flags.

Uh huh. And that’s why moral relativists can’t admit torturing babies is wrong? Because we can’t trust what we know since we all bring to the table our own experiences? Nonsense.

You ask me if it is intellectually honest to suggest rape could ever be right/good. Yes, it is, and it would be intellectually dishonest to outright dismiss a claim without first evaluating the evidence for it. You may end up giving little weight to the evidence—you may even give no weight to the evidence—but to outright dismiss a claim on any basis is a poor rationale.

Seriously? Now we can’t acknowledge the grass is green and the sky is blue? It implies narrow-mindedness? LOL! Please don’t mistake my confidence in gravity as self righteousness.

The first reason why I haven't bitten whenever you've asked to be provided with examples of people who believe rape is justified is that the question being posed by this thread is not about what people believe to be moral or immoral but rather what, if anything, can be shown to be morally true in an absolute sense. As I've already pointed out, what is true is true whether 100% or 0% of people believe it to be true let alone have even conceptualized it. There's a place for the argument you are making, but to my mind it is not here in this thread where we are debating on the objectivity of morality.

My position is morality is objective – that moral truth exists and you say there isn’t a place for that in a thread where we are debating on the objectivity of morality?

Is what people believe about reality relevant to a discussion in which we are attempting to examine the nature of reality, itself?

Wait, so the nature of reality is not the same thing as what reality is?

You ask to be provided with examples of cultures that find rape justifiable. As irrelevant as that information would be to the discussion, it's made even more irrelevant by the fact that in the next breath, you deem unworthy of your consideration a priori any such example that could be provided. You have decided in advance of their presentation not to weigh the evidence for or evaluate the reasoning behind competing moral positions. You are justified in doing so because when you wield objective knowledge of moral truths, you are the moral authority; you already possess the answers on questions of morality, and this self-righteousness sets you above the need to evaluate new claims by way of observation, logic, reason, and the scientific method—the very tools for understanding that you purport to have utilized in your uncovering of said moral truths.

What makes you think I am dismissing something before I hear it? If you have facts, a substantive argument then I would have to accept your response no matter how confident I may have been in my challenge. But saying, “I could tell you, but I’m not going to because I don’t think you would listen to me anyway� certainly makes one wonder if in fact you could tell me. You can understand that, right?

But there may be something you are misunderstanding about science: science doesn't uncover truth. It doesn't prove things. Scientists use the scientific method to determine the plausibility (not truth or falsity) of a hypothesis by testing whether it reproducibly and repeatedly predicts the outcomes of carefully constructed experiments. There doesn't come a time when the scientific community decides that it has found the answer to a question and need no longer evaluate completing claims.

Yes, I understand this very well. Perhaps then you can understand how if someone like Bust Nak says of ourse truth exists, then I can say of course moral truth exists. You have already admitted even science cannot uncover truth, but that doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist and it doesn’t mean truth is subjective. So, why automatically conclude morality is subjective?

Whatever tool of understanding it was that imparted you with an objective understanding of morality, it was not science, because science does not do that.

So is it fair to say whatever tool of understanding it was that imparted someone with an objective understanding that 2+2=4, it was not science, because science does not do that?

Maybe you can share with me the manner by which you acquired what is an understanding of universal moral truths and not simply a pragmatic evaluation of what is in humanity's best interest to give moral consideration to.

Exactly the tools that have imparted to you or anyone else that truth exists.

I'm trying to find out if you see a distinction between a reasoned conclusion and what is objectively true.

Funny, I’m trying to find out the same thing about you.

How was it revealed to you that your reasoned conclusion on the immorality of rape was reflective of an objective moral truth about the immorality of rape?

I’ve said it before, but I will repeat it – via being a human being, living in this world, and acknowledging the truths about this world we live in.